‘Freedom for the thought we hate’

What???? We can be legalistic for all we want…but it is the LORD who is being mocked, defamed, and disrespected to say the least….  mas madling intindihin … yung salitang BINABOY!!!  Hindi siya artistic in anyway….

This guy did not mocked the Catholic Church, it blasphemed the very creator of the church which is Jesus Christ. You can tell every ugly words against the Catholic religion but never on Jesus Christ. 

You can tell every bad words against me, but never on my mother, or else, your Bill of Rights will eat you up alive.

Obviously this columnist is not for everyone to understand because he’s a lawyer and he speaks his own language. Anyway, I would like to agree on some points I managed to comprehend: yes, Mideo Cruz should be hated, boycotted but not censured because he has a right as an artist (or so he and he colleagues think he is) to express himself. The hecklers, most of them have not stepped into the CCP and have seen the exhibit through the biased lens of TV network cameras are overdoing it by calling on the whole CCP board to resign. My goodness, read their roster. These are not (the CCP board, I mean) ordinary people. I agree that they should not resign. One who did is enough. This whole issue would not have been blown out of proportion if one network field reporter didn’t chance upon the exhibit and true to form slanted his report in such a way that it will merit more airtime with the debate (and heckling) that ensued. True, the exhibit had been to UP and Ateneo but the networks do not field reporters to cover exhibits there. Still, I got offended with the way Cruz presented the icons of my religion. And from the pictures of the so called artistic collage that I saw, I do not find it artistic. Besides, Cruz seems to have an ax to grind against religion and (perhaps) his own school. I just wish this will blow over soon as the anti-RH manangs and manongs of the the church seem poised to use the issue to gain mileage for their own campaign.

This writer did not analyze what was the object of anger against the artist. If you are atheist, is it okey just to make fun on God? If you live in a civilized world and travel to remote area and witness how the tribes practice cannibalism, it is alright for you to judge the people, mocked them?

The issue is not about freedom expression, freedom of an artist to express himself, censorship and so on. The issue here is respect. The artist did not shown any respect. And perhaps, this writer can tolerate disrespectful people. I guessed, this writer can tolerate the f.u-finger sign of Duterte. Many people could not tolerate that. And if you fight for your Bill of Rights, learn to respect.

last time i checked, we were still a country ruled by law so we really have to be legalistic about it. otherwise, there will be anarchy on the streets and mob rule ensues. it certainly feels good if you are with the mob ganging up on some hapless minority but can you imagine how it feels when the mob suddenly turns against you?

last time i checked, we were still living in a democrary and not a theocracy or a political dictatorship. imagine living in Saudi Arabia or Iran for example where you do not have the right to express your own religion or belief other than the strict Islamic code they espouse there. imagine living back during the time of Martial Law where you do not have the right to be critical of the Dictator or else you would be fertilizer.  

democracy is not simply “rule of majority” but it is also “respect for minority”.

democracy allows you to have an opinion on this issue and it also allows another person to have a contrary opinion on this matter as well.

unless and until Mideo Cruz’s work violates the law, which, lest we forget, in our democracy is determined by the courts, we cannot take it upon ourselves to redress our grievance through defamation and violence because there are laws against that.

if the law does not uphold your opinion then write to your Congressman so that he can make a law in your favor.

i respect your indignation, it is your right. but it does not necessarily mean that a contrary opinion is wrong.

in the end, we will all have to live the rest of our difficult lives. 

it would be easier if we live our lives in a manner full of love not hate, tolerance not discrimination and respect for all religion and even non-belief.  

last time i checked, we were still a country ruled by law so we really have to be legalistic about it. otherwise, there will be anarchy on the streets and mob rule ensues. it certainly feels good if you are with the mob ganging up on some hapless minority but can you imagine how it feels when the mob suddenly turns against you?

last time i checked, we were still living in a democrary and not a theocracy or a political dictatorship. imagine living in Saudi Arabia or Iran for example where you do not have the right to express your own religion or belief other than the strict Islamic code they espouse there. imagine living back during the time of Martial Law where you do not have the right to be critical of the Dictator or else you would be fertilizer.  

democracy is not simply “rule of majority” but it is also “respect for minority”.

democracy allows you to have an opinion on this issue and it also allows another person to have a contrary opinion on this matter as well.

unless and until Mideo Cruz’s work violates the law, which, lest we forget, in our democracy is determined by the courts, we cannot take it upon ourselves to redress our grievance through defamation and violence because there are laws against that.

if the law does not uphold your opinion then write to your Congressman so that he can make a law in your favor.

i respect your indignation, it is your right. but it does not necessarily mean that a contrary opinion is wrong.

in the end, we will all have to live the rest of our difficult lives. 

it would be easier if we live our lives in a manner full of love not hate, tolerance not discrimination and respect for all religion and even non-belief.  

Sadly, this is more of the same elitist ivory tower
reasoning, divorced from the gut reaction felt on the ground. People all around
were hurt by the display. Does not that speak volumes? Does not that merit
being heard? Kudos to the President for at least feeling for those who felt
hurt by the display and for reminding the CCP to be more sensitive to the people.
Mr. Pangalangan, how intellectual, but would you countenance the same display
if it hurt the sensibilities of a cultural minority? How insensitive.

Where is it written that ordinary citizens have to tolerate
insults from artists and writers so we do not violate their freedom of
expression?

And please do not concoct another spin on the issue.  Everybody knows that it is not the nature of Christians
to resort to violence, that CCP officials do give a hoot about the protest and that
the real “thug” who forced the closure of the exhibit was PNoy.

When people talk respect, it has no boundaries, it has no conditions, it has no if’s or but’s. It is simply, restraining yourself in doing actions that would hurt the feelings of others, the beliefs of others they esteemed most. 

the law of democracy did not say, you must give respect, you must be tolerable. It says, you must do anything you want to do, as you are part of the free society, but with responsibility. Whether you are an artist, a politician, a lawyer or ordinary person, you have the responsibility in all your actions. If you travel to a certain place, and you make fun of the local’s culture, you are responsible for your own life, your right for free expression or speech would not save your life if the local people will kill you. It’s simply be respectful and be responsible. Just that.

Stop talking about an artist right for expression. that is really stupid. Everyone can be artist, and everyone can be responsible and respectful artist.

Nicely elucidated and hypocrisy exposed.

Thanks God! There
is a matured Filipino after all.

Wow…this commentary ruled out the convictions of people who posted on Net discussions.Let me remind the author, that to most of us Faith is more than anything ,as the most essential of our being.Please, as an intrumental tool in reconciling two conflicting ideas … don’t hatched a half baked analyzation of an issue or much better stick to the ethical standard of Neutrality…

the real problem here is …these wanna be enlighten few are now acting themselves as demigods,imposing their will to the multitude,to the extent of circumventing the law of the land.I would like to advise them to go back to the basics of things or risks the sprouting of Christian jihadists and we will be engulfed by chaos.

When people power happened to topple down a totally obscene, malicious and obnoxious conjugal regime of the Marcoses in February 1986, the concerted action was not of a “neighborhood thug” but a natural occurrence reacting and proactively launching a revolt against the “establishment” long tolerated by the governed people to overstay out of fear and complacency. But it happened.

Those who were there at EDSA did not represent the Catholic Church alone. There was no exclusive gathering of one religion though Catholics were more expressive than others by praying the rosary and carrying images of the Blessed Mother Mary. Muslims, atheists, born-again Christians, Protestants, Iglesia ni Cristo, Buddhists, and others were there at EDSA.

Thus, the obscene, malicious, and obnoxious piece of trash created by Medio Cruz deserved another people’s revolt. Of course, now the dissenters argue philosophically, constitutionally, and other perspectives. But, should trash “art” prevail over sense of morals?

No amount of legalistic reasoning can change the unforeseen uproar that these defenders of trash “art” are rationalizing and protesting that mob rule has taken over. In this case which the CCP chair Emily Abrera said she was “practically bullied” and also compared to be as chaotic as the rioting in London, it surprises the defenders of morals that such logic is being used. No sir, this was another freedom of expression undefinable or defying scholarly doctrines commonly called PEOPLE POWER. This time, it happened not in EDSA but at the CCP.

and this is not heckling?

Who had the rights to disturb my Peace ? your Peace ? our Peace ?

Ano kaya ang maramdaman mo kung ang asawa ng anak mo bandang huli lagyan din !@yahoo-VY25ZOHU3FJFFX6CYSH5W4AX3I:disqus #$*&^% ang mukha mo dahil sa bill of rights na sinasabi mo?

Tapos ang sagot sa yo puro article na gawa na tao. Just my way of expressing my rights too…

if a person is just..he/she will stick to the good values and teachings.Golden Rule…….

This column is a breath of fresh air in this whole brouhaha. Thank you.

the damage has been done…. The hand that hold the sword and a scale is now the recourse.

Mr Raul C. Pangalangan

Huwag mo kami turuan kung ano ang dapat naming gawin.  Yung mga preference mo sa iyo na lang yun.  May isip din ang mga tao.

Kunwari advocate ka ng freedom of expression, hindi mo ba na-r-realize advocate ka ng obscenity.

     I think it is time we finally realize the truth – that the Philippines is not a liberal democracy and that people do not understand the Bill of Rights and why it is important.  Pangalangan actually provided a reasoned discussion on the meaning of liberty, and all his detractors can say is that they will not tolerate a lack of respect to their (majority) beliefs.  
     I remember the days when Marcos demanded respect, and if you showed lack of respect you were detained and tortured.  Or when a police officer demands respect and doesn’t get it, they could violate your civil rights (maybe even by killing you – which like the vandalizers they can justify because they didn’t show proper respect and so can violate the law).  It is because of these that we should cherish our Bill of Rights and strengthen it, not slowly destroy it and find exceptions.  Because if we give away a little bit of our rights here, a little bit there, one day we will wake up and find ourselves in a situation when we actually wished we stood strong and defended our basic rights.
     And as to People Power, remember that we had to resort to it precisely because we did not have constitutional rights and had no recourse.  And even EDSA2, Cory Aquino later regretted, precisely because she realized it was the majority mob going against the Constitution.
     Like Pangalangan points out, liberty is about tolerating other beliefs and public expression, no matter how twisted we think it is. Remember a quote attributed to Voltaire, one of the great philosophers that defended rights and liberties: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”"

Very enlightening. Or  very enraging. It all depends on which side you are. in.  What remains to be seen is how Roman Catholics would react if the Ombudsman finds no probable cause against Mideo Cruz and the CCP  people. Or if they are indicted but are ultimately cleared by the court. Will the decision spark another uproar and  a new round of calls for blood or will it be respected?  Abangan.

Just where can you find the command of Jesus  for His followers to go after  people who spit on His face and  mock His name? On the contrary,  He commanded Peter to put away his sword  when the latter tried to fight those who came to arrest Him. And on the cross, He asked the Father to forgive His murderers, torturers and mockers.

Very insightful & rational arguments on CCP dilemma.               

“[T]he freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.” Amen.

Isn’t it the Bill Of Rights is designed to protect the minority from abuse and  being voted off their rights by the majority? And the smallest form of  a minority is the individual. The individual’s rights to freedom of expression must at all times be upheld and protected by the state and free from religious influence.

And blasphemy is a victimless crime. If there is freedom of religion and freedom to the practice religion , it should start and end with themselves

In a secular country as the Philippines, an individual’s right to freedom of expression must be respected and not imposed on, curtailed and censured by any religion and the state as in our constitution must not endorse a religion or an act favoring any religion to rob one of his individual rights – as well as an individual’s right to freedom from religion.

Religion Versus Freedom of Expression
“Thirty years ago the Iranians – at the height of the glory of their Islamic Revolution – objected to Salman Rushdie’s novel [The Satanic Verses] thereby initiating a clash of civilizations. Everybody in Europe at the time, from writers to publishers to readers, were accustomed to freedom of expression in their cultural domain, and this even included freedom of expression against the Christian church. Those who objected to something were only entitled to stage demonstrations outside the theatre or publishing house in question, or to write letters protecting this. Anybody who is dissatisfied can only merely refrain from seeing or purchasing the work of art in question and encouraging the others to do the same.”

“ The issue here is respect. ”

Respect is earned, not given or commanded. Tolerance yes not respect if your actions are not respectable.

“…… or risks the sprouting of Christian jihadists and we will be engulfed by chaos.”

‘yan ba ang bantang pananakot  ninyo laban sa FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION kung hindi ninyo ito masikil????

“… respect for all religion …”
Are you not contradicting yourself?  You are defending Cruz’s right to express himself, but where is his “respect for all religion”?

I agree with your intent, but let me point out that blasphemy is NOT a crime as defined by national law. It is a RELIGIOUS violation, therefore while it may have a place in religious proceeding (excommunication, for example), it has NO place in a secular debate.

Freedom does not mean the right to agree, it means the right to DISAGREE, to dissent, to challenge, to question. What religion cannot, and will not tolerate is disagreement, dissension, challenge, and questioning. Religion and freedom are fundamentally in opposition.

So while national law and the Constitution encourage religious freedom, religion cannot be allowed to dictate freedom outside of religion. Which is what religious fanaticism attempts to do.

As with many other points of contention, the right answer is – if you don’t like it, you don’t have to watch it, or patronize it, or visit it, or read it. You can preach against it. You can tell others who agree with you to boycott it. You can set up your own counter-display. But you CANNOT – and if you are serious about freedom, you SHOULD NOT – stop it.

What the religious mob who forced the closure of this exhibit (which I personally find to be in exceedingly bad taste) is saying, is that the only freedom they are willing to grant is the freedom to agree with them. That is not freedom, that is totalitarianism. That is dictatorship. That is, in the end, against the Philippine Constitution, and therefore can be construed as rebellion and treason.

And you? What are you an advocate of? Of propriety? It seems to me you are an advocate for illogicality and irrationality! I mean, what else do you want? A full treatise written completely in mathematical logic explaining how and why those fallacies are fallacies in the first place?

A fallacy, if I remind you, is not according to “preference”. An incorrect way of thinking is an incorrect way of thinking any way you put it. 

If Mr. Pangalanan would rather prefer to think correctly, and you wouldn’t, then so be it!

What does that tell us about you though?

And here I was thinking that the INQ has gone over the edge with their “Art as Terrorism” article. Thank you Mr. Pangalangan for restoring some sensibility and rationality into these ignoramuses!

there is no contradiction. respecting another person’s religion in a democracy does not require that you stop expressing your own belief or non-belief just because it contradicts or offends the religion of others. it only requires you to not impose your belief or non-belief on those who do not share your faith or lack of it.

mideo cruz did not impose his belief or idea upon you. it was just sitting quietly in different art galleries for almost ten years until some rabble-rousing individuals coupled with sensationalist media pulled it out from obscurity. come to think of it, unless you take the time, money and effort to go to the CCP, “politeismo” would be of no consequence to your life. furthermore, you are free to boycott it.

i am Catholic but contrast this to the impositions that the Catholic majority make on people of other faiths in this country like when we hold traffic-stopping religious processions on public roads. Born-again Chrisitians and Protestants view religious icons paraded there as disrepectful to their faith but these are displayed openly in public and they are forced to bear this because they have to use the public road. 

contrast this also to the imposition of religious holidays like Holy Week and Ramadan.

remember, our democracy and rule of law does not only cater to religious majorities like Catholics.    
 

If the Apostles were of the same thinking as you do and did not preach against the culture and practices of the heathen  which were contrary to the teachings of Christ because one must respect the ways of others, then Christianity would have been confined in Jerusalem and not spread throughout the world. Here’s one instance when Christianity clashed with the ways of the heathen:
 ”Many of them
also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned
them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it
fifty thousand pieces of silver.
 So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.
 After
these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had
passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After I
have been there, I must also see Rome.
 So
he sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him, Timotheus
and Erastus; but he himself stayed in Asia for a season.
 And the same time there arose no small stir about that way.
 For
a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines
for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen;
 Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth.
 Moreover
ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all
Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that
they be no gods, which are made with hands:
 So
that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also
that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her
magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world
worshippeth.
And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” Acts 19: 19-28

In a way, the early Christians are like Mideo Cruz: they also did not care about images which were held dear by others.

Dean, you are the man the beleaguered  Mideo Cruz and company need. In the name of freedom, civil rights and democracy, please defend them.

you are right. if it is okay to be imelda, enrile, danding, erap, gloria, eurogenerals and wives, pajero bishops, et. al., it is okay to be obscene and get away with being obscene in other people’s faces…

how i wish our lawmakers think as you are mr. pangalangan.

Paano matututo ang mga katulad mo kung hindi ka tuturuan?

At kung may alam ka naman, maganda kung i-debunk mo siya point-by-point.  Malay mo, baka may punto ka.

Precisely, you have a right to say it.  You may be wrong, but hey, you’re here now.

Ako personally kung may galit ang ibang tao at binaboy ang litrato ng asawa’t anak ko, pati nanay ko…OKAY LANG. Litrato lang yun, hindi mismo ang personal space ng mga loved ones ko.

In the same way, hindi si Kristo yung “binaboy.” Imahe lang. Ni hindi pa tayo sigurado kung mukha ni Kristo yun o mukha ni Jacques DeMolay.

Since when did Christ get reduced to a mere statue?

This is exactly the kind of idolatrous mindset “Politeismo” is talking about.

Finally someone in the Inquirer thought of restoring reason.
Finally someone in the Inquirer thought that the values that were taught were more important than those who supposedly taught the values but acted otherwise.

What fallacy are you talking about? The FACT of the matter is that almost all people were disgusted and outraged by the “artworks” of mr. Cruz. So are you saying that it is more important for one man to display his art freely than the outraged sensibilities of thousands who also have every right to show their disgust? What nonsense is that? Pag ako ba lumabas sa kalsada ng hubo’t hubad in the guise of showing my art hindi ba ako huhuliin ng police at ikukulong?  Can i reason out that my body is also a work of art no matter how offensive it may be (literally)? We are a catholic country. You live here and you expect to show art like that and claim freedom of expression as a protective mantle. So millions of Filipino should just shrug their shoulder and let you be as obnoxious and disrespectful of their belief and religion so you can claim to be an artist. Well you do it at your home or in front of your friends and supporters. You do it in public be thankful it is only your art that is vandalized and not your person.I am not Catholic nor a deeply religious person and even I was outraged. Walang bastusan.

One does not need to read or quote Oliver Wendell Holmes or anyone to prove a point on this issue. Common Sense lang. a little prudence and a whole lot of common sense is all we need to get by in this world. Treat others as you would want them to treat you. That one rule covers everything and if applied  instantly makes the world a better place. Hirap sa atin ang mali ikakatwiran na maging tama. ang tama babaluktotin na maging mali. kaya tayo nagkaka leche leche eh. Kaya sa gobyerno…yung huling huli na…obvious na obvious…ilalaban pa. “Patunayan niyo sa korte!” Ano pa dapat patunayan? Mali ang CCP at si mr. CRuz on this one. Huwag ng pangatwiranan pa.

So following your reasoning, you wouldn’t mind if I demanded to have your parents to be arrested, on the grounds that they’re ugly enough to offend my sensibilities?

Adrian, not everybody in RP believes in the divinity of Chirst, and even less believes in the so-called morality of the CBCP.

Mr Pangalangan: Your article advances a bigger fallacy: Freedom of expression is absolute.

Come on guys, this is called artistic freedom.  I am raised as a Catholic and I’m NOT offended by this.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion and freedom of expression.  What sucks is that the exhibit was vandalized by people that got offended by the images etc.  There is absolutely no need to do that.

Is it ok to vandalize the oblation statue in UP since the guy is butt naked?  Where’s our morals now?

I strongly agree with you alanco. Kaya kung titingnan natin ang values na meron ang mga later generation ibang iba na ngayon…too much freedom and wrong interpretation of freedom leads to justification of what is morally wrong into an acceptable norms… simpleng common sense lang talaga. Respect begets respect wala ng kailangan pang i justify…sana matuto rin ang ibang remespeto. 

antonio Pe Yang III alam mo isa ka talagang typical na pinoy, patay na sumisipa pa…gets mo? Kapag talunan na, mamimilosopo na lang. Ano ba gusto mo patunayan? matalino ka? Ikaw na magaling! Yan masaya ka na? Cguro pde ka na manahimik! nonsense ang pagkapilosopo mo, wala kang point. Kababawan ang sinasabi mo. 

art na nga kung art pero kapag niyurakan mo na ang iba iba na ang ibig sabihin nun. it’s freedom of the tyrant.

“Pag ako ba lumabas sa kalsada ng hubo’t hubad in the guise of showing my art hindi ba ako huhuliin ng police at ikukulong?”

Is the oblation statue freedom of expression or not?

I respectfully disagree with Dean Pangalanan’s assertion that blasphemy victimizes or affects noone except religion itself. It is the believers that fall victims to any sacrilegious acts or utterances since religion or religious beliefs are nothing without the people who believe in them. And while it is also true that we can`t hurt something neuter of which beliefs are, we can can definitely say that we could offend the people who consider these beliefs sacred and important. 
 
Not too long ago -and even now - we were cursing everything and everyone whose actions we had considered as detrimental to democracy - which without the people, and even as noble as it is, is also nothing but a concept that religion without believers is. If this is the case, then perhaps it is our personal preferences that spell the difference between our responses. That it is only the political activists like the Dean who has reason to be sensitive about their rights while expecting the religious to be totally unaffected by even the vilest insults.

Antonio anong karapatan mo para lahatin ang CBCP? hindi ko sila pinagtatanggol, kahit sa simbahan marami ang makasalanan kahit ako, pero sino ang perpekto? ano ngayon nag gusto mo sabihin? ikaw ba? malinis ka ba? madali lang mamuna ang magbigay ng komento. Hindi lahat naniniwala kay Kristo sa pinas, pero majority ay naniniwala, at kahit mag isa or dalawa lang ang niniwala karapatan mo na bang gawin subject sa art na bastos ang at sasabihin mo konti lang naman ang niniwala so i bubully mo na lang ang monirity! Leche ka! Akala mo matalino ka? Wag kang masyadong mag magaling…dapat sayo bumalik sa basic education para matutunan mo ang ibig sabihin ng respeto. 

Article 201 Revised Penal Code of the Philippines…..

wat?

Pornoseptic artist Mideo Cruz has all the rights to violate the dignity of any representation of the essence of other people in a public area.

So Ok sigue na nga tama kayo, freedom of expression is absolute. Tama na din kayo when you say that you can use the taxpayers’ money to display what you call “art”, no matter that many of those taxpayers protest it (don’t they have a say anymore how their money is spent, just because of your freedom to express?)

BUT, still we’re waiting for the artist who would dare stick a penis on the holy Quran.

With due respect to the writer, what if the pictures are those of your beloved mother, father, wife , daughter or son and everybody in the barangay is talking about the pamamastos to your loved one? Sasabihin mo lang na i-boycott at hwag ihinto because that is tantamount to censorship? Easily said than done is your proposition Raul. Perhaps the most charitable justification I can give to your proposition is that we who are Catholics or Christians consider Jesus as God as our Father and the Virgin Mary as our beloved Mother while perhaps you consider Jesus and Mary differently.

Even if Medio Cruz will abuse religious icons that BELONGS to other faith,,,the Government or general public must stop him from doing so..in the context that it will disturb the peace,endanger harmony,and hurt the feelings either of the majority or minority,depending on which the act is focused. Medio Cruz desecrated our Icons dear to us Christians,It belongs to us,believers and his right to use/medium is limited to the Church purpose..e.g.to inspire or petition for good cause,even these,,responsible user will ask permission from the owner….i hope M.Cruz will ammend and apologize to the offended multitude.

Hey, you conveniently forget that Jesus once overturned the tables of the merchants who were desecrating His Father`s house.

If we start to censor art (no matter if we feel it offends us), then where do we stop?  Should we censor the Noli me Tangere and El Filibusterismo because it shows disrespect for priests? 
      Or by this logic, is it then OK if some Islamic countries ban Christian symbols in public (because it offends them and after all, they are the majority in their countries).  That is why this is dangerous – you stop one person here, you maybe stop another group there, and before you know it, we find ourselves losing our freedoms.  
     And if our standard is that it should not offend religious sensibilities, then we really do not have any argument to make in other countries that ban Christian symbols they find offensive.  Is this what we really want?
     That is why our Bill of Rights is so important, and it is also important to allow minority opinions to be aired.  By the way, it is also OK for conservative Catholics to voice their own protests – where the line should be drawn are threats to violence (why not just issue a fatwa?) or the censoring a minority view because the majority does not like it.

/Ano ba gusto mo patunayan? matalino ka? Ikaw na magaling! Yan masaya ka
na? Cguro pde ka na manahimik! nonsense ang pagkapilosopo mo, wala kang
point. Kababawan ang sinasabi mo.//  Nope. Just proving how stupid an argument is based on a personal opinion of what is “offensive,” and what is not. Speaking of which, your writing offends my grammar gods. See you in court.

Mideo Cruz does not have an artistic mind but a sick demented one. His works belong to the Mental Hospital not the CCP! How can one miss the obvious? The guy is crazy and those curators of the CCP are more crazy for not recognizing that.

Tell that to the idiots who vandalized the exhibit. For them, freedom of expression is absolute.

Expect Mideo Cruz to sue CCP for violating his freedom of expression.

that’s why there is a separation of church(,for spirituality) and state…the government to safeguard the common good of the many or passive majority and be responsible also that the minority will not be ganged up by sheer numbers,..in short, civil order must be maintain by the authorities…like; an ounce of foresight is better than dealing with the complixities of reconciliation or retribution.

But it is absolute, which is why the US Supreme Court sided with the Westboro Baptist Church.

//BUT, still we’re waiting for the artist who would dare stick a penis on the holy Quran.// Ever heard of a red herring fallacy?

Nope.that’s my real assesment if you/me/they ,remove RESPECT on the thread our society,..without it,,civility will collapse !

Artwise in a democracy artists have their freedom of expression, yes. Religionwise artists should not blspheme by dishonoring representations if not the name of God in violation of the third Commandment. Socialwise artists should have enough social responsibility, considering the effect it will give to the bakya crowd.

Artwise in a democracy artists have their freedom of expression, yes. Religionwise artists should not blspheme by dishonoring representations if not the name of God in violation of the third Commandment. Socialwise artists should have enough social responsibility, considering the effect it will give to the bakya crowd.

Law of the Jungle….

//With due respect to the writer, what if the pictures are those of your
beloved mother, father, wife , daughter or son and everybody in the
barangay is talking about the pamamastos to your loved one? Sasabihin mo
lang na i-boycott at hwag ihinto because that is tantamount to
censorship?//

If they got that picture legitimate, there is not much I can do except ignore them. The more I will rant, the more attention they’ll get. Now if they stole that picture from me, I’d charge them with theft.

//Perhaps the most charitable justification I can give to your proposition
is that we who are Catholics or Christians consider Jesus as God as our
Father and the Virgin Mary as our beloved Mother while perhaps you
consider Jesus and Mary differently.//

And would your family condone you resorting to violence, death threats, or vandalism to defend their honor? Jesus, who forgave prostitutes, tax collectors, and even the soldiers who defaced him with a crown of thorns? What would Jesus do indeed.

And the vandals aren’t sick in the head?

And was Mideo’s exhibit in a temple?

that’s my view from the distance….i could be indifferent if the subject does not really of my concern,and that’s what i did under corrupt past administration…

//What???? We can be legalistic for all we want…but it is the LORD who
is being mocked, defamed, and disrespected to say the least….  mas
madling intindihin … yung salitang BINABOY!!!  Hindi siya artistic in
anyway….// Then let the LORD personally file his case in court.

All these brouhaha over the artwork of Mr. Cruz is nothing but hypocrisy! The Church says its against its principles. Did the work of art hurt anyone like the way these people in robes have children outside their vow of celibacy or asking money from the government in which just for their convenience to reach far flung places? There is meaning to each artwork. I gusess the hecklers were hurt because the truth hurts! They dont practice what they preach! Art is a form of freedom of expression… supressing it is nothing more than censorship all the way. So to the hecklers if you dont like Mr. Cruz’ work then dont look at it. Just shut up! Mabuhay ang Sining Pilipino!

did anyone stop and think WHY Mideo Cruz put that phallus there? a phallic symbol usually denotes power, the power to create, he didn’t put it there JUST BECAUSE. maybe instead of looking at what it is, we should be looking at why he arranged it the way he did.

then with that argument, we can assume that there was NEVER any intent to disrespect Christianity, but instead, a different way of expressing his respect for the power that Christ holds over this country.

i think you’re overreacting, the art is censored only when it hits below the belt, way below the belt. remember that when you exercise your freedom you are bound to exercise it respecting the rights of others, that is why we have “political correctness.” 

and if you do not stop the hitting now, what will be its limits? everything has a limit, even freedom.

and just because you are an artist it doesn’t mean you have more rights than the “average” individual.

FBPKSA, nobody has to be “perfect” to call out another’s hypocrisy. And if you really want to play the majority rules argument, remember it was an angry mob that had your savior nailed to a wooden plank. Majority wins indeed.

// Hindi lahat naniniwala kay Kristo sa pinas, pero majority ay
naniniwala, at kahit mag isa or dalawa lang ang niniwala karapatan mo na
bang gawin subject sa art na bastos ang at sasabihin mo konti lang
naman ang niniwala so i bubully mo na lang ang monirity!//

In a free country, yes, much in the same way that you are free to express your outrage and perceived offense. What you cannot do is censor any message you find disagreeable, or resort to acts of physical violence, which the vandals did.

I distinctly recall Jesus asking Peter to sheathe his sword when was about to be arrested by the Romans. For a man who claims to follow his teachings, you are doing a piss-poor job of showing reason, restraint, or even common sense. Have you actually read the bible?

//.too much freedom and wrong interpretation of freedom leads to justification of what is morally wrong into an acceptable norms..// Couldn’t agree more. The vandals that attacked these defenseless artworks had too much freedom on their hands.

Freedom is not absolute….. too much freedom and when abused results to tyranny.

when you see a “phallus” in your pic (on your head? or mouth?) being posted online you don’t ask “why”, it wouldn’t invoke you to think (ay bagay pala sa akin!). you merely invoke the question “who” did this, you are provoked!!!

that is what happened here, in the guise of “art” the believers of Christ are being provoked on their beliefs, that is the central message of “polytismo.” the message of cruz is that you are wrong in believing, christians can accept that. but not when you add phallic symbols on figures of adoration. 

good one!  finally, i found one filipino lawyer who i can be proud of!  difinitely way, way above the class of mike arroyo, abalos, garcillano, and other filipino lawyers who are only lawyers by name!
 
 what about taking the case and take it all the way to the supreme court?  win the case, and your name will forever be memorialized!

Absolutely correct, let’s give these artists total freedom. It is KUBETA ART. nakikita na iyan araw araw sa mga public toilet ginagawa ng mga tumatae habang nakaupo sa inidoro. It s no big deal. AFter all it is KUBETA ART. mga tarugo puke pekpek bayag.

And the Church leaders were geniuses for persecuting Galileo et al? Oh, how about the Spanish Inquisition and the the killings between Catholics and Protestants?

And Rizal was likewise persecuted and the Church vehemently opposed the teaching of Rizal in schools.

If you don’t like it then don’t watch it, don’t read it, don’t subscribe to it, don’t talk about it.

di nga sya marunong mag apply ng hecklers veto … meh

the subject of the artist polytheism and the 2 pictures i saw separately in inquirer (jc+phallus ashtray) and philstar (jc statue painted with disney icon). it misled me to think that it will be offensive to most catholic until i saw the art itself (imagine a typical filipino household room that has posters and what ever you have in a wall lump together) and it made sense with the theme of polytheism (worship of many gods). the artist is more catholic (if he is one) than what i originally thought he was. the bible says use scripture for rebuking, correcting and instructing the faithful but he did it by way of visually presenting what is wrong with the catholic/christian faith. homes having pictures/statues of jc in one corner and a fengshui/budha/waiving cat/coin mouthed frog with matching door bling chimes.the art questions your faith by asking who really is the one and true God you worship and believe. if you got offended by the jc+phallus nose, maybe, just maybe, that is how God feels when you commit the sin of being adulterous by not being faithful to the one you profess to love.

Absolutely correct, let’s give these artists total freedom. It is
KUBETA ART. nakikita na iyan araw araw sa mga public toilet ginagawa ng
mga tumatae habang nakaupo sa inidoro. It s no big deal. AFter all it
is KUBETA ART. mga tarugo puke pekpek bayag.

don’t display it in a public exhibition?

There’s history behind the cross being regarded as a phallic symbol. If there’s context behind the “blasphemy,” then I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. And from what I’ve read, the artwork has been around for some time now. Why only complain now? 

Ang CCP ngayon ay CUBETA CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES, sentro ng mga tarugo, bayag, puke, pekpek, condom, vagina. Bigyan natin ng total freedom of expression. CUBETA CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES.

…

 It can really go both ways.

I guess those of you who support the exhibit see nothing wrong with the cyber bullying of Christopher Lao?

Too much of anything is detrimental…even freedom.

instinct tells us not to do the things that will compromise self preservation.

hoy magtigil ka mr pangalangan. di tayo kinakailangan maging matalino para makita na maling mali yang exhibit na “kulo” dyan sa ccp. hindi yan art kundi bunga ng isang malaswa at hindi idukadong kaisipan

Wrong analogy. It’s not a problem of excess as much as a conflict between two institutions (art and religion). 

so ganun lang? mali na pala ang mag-isip ngayon. mali ang maging matalino. bawal na magkuro kuro at magtalakayan. susunod na lang tayo sa preconceived notions ng karamihan? mali ang maging elitista pero mali rin kung hindi natin ie-encourage sa tao na pag-isipan ng husto ang iba’t ibang bagay. 

when “art” steps into the territory of religion you get a conflict … and there is a problem of excess … just because you proclaim yourself an artist doesn’t mean the rules of propriety and respect does not cover you…

“Should we censor the Noli me Tangere and El Filibusterismo because it shows disrespect for priests?”

‘yon NOLI at FILI ay hindi lang na-censored,  kundi banned noon makapangyarihan pa ang relihiyon tinatamaan ng mensahe ng ARTWORK. ngayon nais ng mapang-api at abusang relihiyon na ito kitilil ang FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

You can also look at it the other way around. The bullying of Mideo Cruz.

We can criticize Mideo Cruz for his “stinking art” until we are blue in the face. We can shout invective to all the people who were somehow involved in “Kulo” exhibit but we cannot ban or censor them. And from whose standard shall we base if their art is really blasphemous or kubeta, a trial judge or the Supreme Court? Da! Eh di nahin*ot na! 

Like I said. It can go both ways. Isn’t heckling a form of freedom of expression?

i guess everyone was misled (including me) with a cropped picture of jc+phallus nose because it does not match with the polytheism theme, until i saw the whole picture of it in gmanewstv. it’s an adulterous wall professing love for God and others.

Ummm…tanong lang sa mga nag-susuport ng art ni Mr. Cruz. Hindi po ba para sa mga Kristyano – lalo na sa Katoliko – eh ang mga imahe eh mga “sagradong” bagay? Samakatwid, hindi dapat bastusin. Sa ating personal na buhay, may mga imahe tayo na (para sa atin) eh huwag na huwag mong babastusin at kung hindi eh magkakamatyan tayo. Sabihin na natin na larawan ng yumaong ina o ama. Paano kaya kung ang pinagkaka-galang galang at pinagkaka-pitagang larawan ng inyong ama o ina ang pinatungan ng ari o kaya’y sukdulang bastusin (gaya ng ginawa ni Mr. Cruz sa mga imahe) tapos i-exhibit sa madla, ano po kaya ang mararamdaman ninyo? Sasabihin din po ba nyo na “okay lang yan, art naman yan eh.”? Kung kayang makita ng inyong mga magulang na binastos ang kanilang imahe at ikunatuwa pa ninyo, palagay po ba ninyo ay matutuwa sila?

Just curious.

——————————-

Mapili din si Mr. Cruz eh. Katolisismo ang na-pusuan nya gawan ng “art”. Palagay ko…kung ang banal Quoran ang binastos nya (na gaya ng ginawa nya), eh sa mga dumaang araw ay tadtad sya ng death threat.

he was the one who bullied his “art” to the public even if he knew that it was a mistake in the first place. the so-call artists call it freedom of expression,  but how about the right of others to voice out their contrary opinion, so you call them bullies?

Please take your blind faith in your religion and go away.

Instantly Mideo Cruz became popular. What he has done is unforgettable. In the world of art the work of mr.Cruz will be historically engraved. He dared what is forbidden and he reaped the outcome.

So ugali ba yan ng mga banal? Kawawang Pilipinas, ugaling kolonyal pa rin. 

Tumpak pare! WHAT WOULD JESUS DO? Would He have called for the head of his “enemy” just like the Pro-Life ilk did? Would He have resorted to vandalism and threats? I THINK NOT!

Daming hypocrite sa mga so-called religious people natin. Nakakafrustrate.

“Art is lies that tell the truth.” – Pablo Picasso

You’re not helping your cause by giving out the idea that “blasphemy” can lead to death. Parang nananakot. Kaya tinatawag na “religious mob” eh. Pwedeng gawan ng art ni Mideo iyang malungkot na idelohiya mo.

In a way, yes. But not banning and censorship. We may heckle, we may condone, we may boycott but not shut people up or in this case remove their avenue for expression. 

I don’t like it. I won’t go there to see it. I’ll just say he’s a copycat. It’s all been done before.

The biggest argument against the liberty to express one’s opinions are the inane comments of some of the people here who has no recourse but to use namecalling and cussing and pass it off as healthy debate.

Mali na ikumpara sa magulang at mahal sa buhay ang sitwasyon dito. Pwede siguro kung ang yumao mong mahal sa buhay ay may malaking impluwensya sa lipunan natin. Kung may context iyung art na ginawa tungkol sa mahal mo sa buhay at makaka-produce ito ng profound insight, at hindi lang blasphemy for the sake of blasphemy, siguro naman mas mauunawaan mo. 

But dont deal it with bigotry and fanaticism. 

Kudos Dean for trying to restore some sense into this brouhaha! 

Tanong ko sa mga Pro-Life people et. al. WHAT WOULD JESUS DO Ma’am, Ser? Would He have called for the head of his “enemy”? Would he have resorted to name-calling and strong arming? Katoliko ako at hindi ko rin gusto ang ginawa ni Mideo Cruz pero tutol ako sa paraang ginamit para ma-censure sya.

Nakakalungkot isipin na yung mga Kristyano pa (kuno) sa mga discussion boards ang 1) nag-aargue nang walang sense at logic at 2) nagreresort sa threats, name-calling, pagmumura etc. 

He never made it mandatory for anyone to like it. I don’t know how you can say he bullied it to the public. I’m not against voicing out contrary opinion. I’m against shutting people up. 

See it made the Filipino mind THINK and that is what the Filipino mind has no time for kasi marami na masyado ang problema at ngayon kailangan magisip pa, sobra naman iyan! Kailangan pagkain, kailangan may maisusuot, kailangan alagaan ang pamilya at mga magulang wala na ngang panahon para magisip pa ng “ART”!! Masyado mabigat ang nakapatong sa balikat at kailangan magmadali; marami na ang nakagugulo at kailangan pa ba magisip sa kultura – maidedeposito ba yan sa banko at pwede ipambayad sa mga utang – ano bang kalokohan ito!!! Hindi importante sa bituka kaya kayo na ang bahala diyan!!!
Welcome to the psyche of the poor Filipino!

so ikaw di ka tipikal na pinoy? malabo na nga argument mo, pinabababa mo pa by denigrating your own race. haaay…. frustrating.

Airtight legal arguments though a bit overkill. But i’ll buy it anyway because I share the author’s legal sentiments.  And let me have,too, a reproduction of the Politeismo  if it is available for purchase. I need it to deck my entry door to provoke, on purpose, a reaction from friends and neighbors. I’ll let you know what kind of people live in my neighborhood.

you have freedom of expression, and ok that freedom is absolute no matter if it tramples upon the rights and freedoms of other people. for you only YOUR freedoms matter, ours don’t. so OK, tapos ang usapan.

we also have the freedom of choice! and we will choose not to buy your art. we will choose not to see your plays. we will choose not to see your performances. we will choose not to patronize you. LET’S START A BOYCOT OF THESE ARTISTS! tapos ang usapan.

FACT? Can you cite your sources for saying that? Because otherwise OPINYON nyo lang po yan. 
We are a Catholic Country?? Saang bahagi ng Konstitusyon nasasaad to?? ma-check nga. 

and leave alone my personal Jesus……

Everything is open to criticism. Ideas, beliefs, aspirations. Even religions are not exempted. It is true that there should be respect for all but can all of us consider each criticism to be respectful? Just a thought.

What’s wrong with the Pieta?  It just depicts the anguish of a mother over a dead son sprawled on her lap after the crucifixion.  I don’t find any incongruousity in it.  If it will be brought in the CCP, I think, people would adore it, not just the artists.

Forget about jurisprudence interpretations of the bill of rights.  What if your children put figures of penises and vaginas in your picture in your house, would you not censure them because they have freedom of expression?  Would you allow your friends and neighbors see the pictures?

Respect is not for everyone, it is earned. Like for Mideo Cruz, if you don’t respect his art that’s fine. He just didn’t earn it.

The law does not guarantee that our feelings will not be hurt. Only person and our property.

Anak ng … !  Ang dami pang nagpapaka-intellect e!  Eto lang ang katotohanan!  Gustong ipakita ni Cruz ang baho at kaimoralan ng relhiyong katolisismo.  Given na yun.  Dahil sa kasaysayan ng maging sa pinakalumang relihiyon ng tao palagay ko wala namang naging perpekto.  Lahat may pagkukulang.  Ang kasalanan ay likas sa sinuman kasi tao lamang tayo at ito din ang dahilan kaya tayo may limitasyon.  Hindi naman tayo puwedeng maghayag na lang ng basta-basta kung ano ang saloobin natin kasi kung ito ang kaso e di lahat na lang ng gusto nating sabihin halimbawa sa radyo o telebisyon e puwede.  Bilang alagad ng sining, may social at moral responsibility siya.  Kung wala lahat ito ang mundo ay sadyang magiging magulo lamang.  Hindi ako debotong Katoliko.  Minsan nga ilang buwan na ang lumilipas bago ako ulit tumuntong sa simbahan e.  May mga baho alam ko ang relihiyon ko.  Pero kung talagang gustong ipakita ni Cruz ang dumi ng relihiyon hindi ang mga imahe at santo ang nagpapabaho dito kundi ang mismong TAO!  E di sana ipakita nya ang baho ng tao na nagpapadumi sa imahe ng relihiyon.  Ang mga imahe sagrado nga e.  Bakit ito ang bababuyin mo para ipkita ang dumi ng tao?!!!

I do not curtail the freedom of the artists but this kind of art should be exhibited somewhere else, not the CCP.

That would probably the most peaceful thing that anyone could have done.

Exactly.

“i dont agree with you but i will die defending your right to say what you believe.”

Exactly.

if it is against Love…then M.Cruz(whatsoever) was evangilizing HATRED……according to a study, exhibitionism can be symtom of more problematic behavior,and will pose a danger to the genaral welfare of the public.

“i dont agree with you but i will die defending your right to say what you believe.”

//if it is against Love…then M.Cruz(whatsoever) was evangilizing
HATRED……according to a study, exhibitionism can be symtom of more
problematic behavior,and will pose a danger to the genaral welfare of
the public.// Religious fanaticism is another problematic behavior, and has led to several wars and acts of genocide.

He was making a counter-argument that if the CCP should be neutral and not exhibit irreligious or in the words of clergy ‘sacrilegious art’ then it also should not exhibit religious art to avoid partisanship. 

you can boycott. it is your right.

The problem here is that we can twist the law.

Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code on obscene exhibitions and
indecent shows.

We call evil good and good evil.

The devils speak in forked tongue.

Yes, the law does not define which is obscene and indecent. But maybe for the exact same reasons that it understands that we have different gradients for what’s obscene or what’s not. Some people may twist it. Some people may untwist it. 

ibig kong sabihin,,sinasampahan…doon sa korte ang na magtalo sa arguments….dito discussion lang naman…

Nice realization there. Oh good bishops you have.

kelangan pa bng i-explain yan? hehe

I think so. I think what was understood is that there was something wrong with the Pieta.

Straight from the dungeons crying, “I was not informed!” Hahaha

Freedom is both good and bad.
Art is both good and bad.
Food is both good and bad.
Medicine is both good and bad.
Creation is both good and bad.
You and I are both good and bad.
In everyone of us, we have a bit of GMA, a bit of Marcos, a bit of Cory, a bit of Rizal, a bit if Dr. Jykell, and a bit of Mr. Hyde.

Good is both good and bad.
Bad is both good and bad.
You’re talking nonsense.

What’s wrong with penises and vaginas? You have it. Your children have it.

Being a Christian is a continues struggle to imitate our Lord Jesus Christ,His Teachings guided us and we conclude to ourselves that we found the Truth ,the Way of Life,,Happiness and we are at Peace with our religion or Faith…..Now..a huge numbers of peoples saw and experienced what i had bless to possesed and then out of the blue,,Medio Cruz will debunked our belief and worst abused Icon that belong to us….What reaction would result??.,,Conflict which everybody abhorrs and against our Christian teachings,and how do we settle disagreements???through the court for civility…If frustrations cannot be satisfied…instinct will rule,isn’t it ?

Bigot

When a work of art revels in impiety and mockery of whatever faith a person creeds on, I feel disturbed for it somehow breaks the Golden Rule. If I personally have a mockery or blasphemous work go against one’s faith an easy pass, then I am not doing to another faithful man what I would have him do unto me.
 
I agree that the Government shouldn’t censor any work of art for it violates the artist’s right to freedom of expression, anyone also has a right to see it, appreciate it or consume it, and I can learn from what is good in any work of art, but that doesn’t mean I can’t express offense when a part of it mocks or degrade one’s faith or religious expression.
 
That same disturbing feeling comes on me the when the freedom of expression is called upon to justify one’s action or thought that degrades another’s dignity. Would I give a personal pass on work of arts or statements or actions that mock and degrade the dignity of women, or gays, or race, or those with physical or mental handicaps? NO. I express my offense in it and upholds responsible sensibility on such matters, most especially in public fora.
 
As Al Maxey puts it on “The Fine Art of Godly Mockery”:
There is a fine line, however, between responsible ridicule and malicious mockery, and what begins as an honorable effort to separate truth from falsehood can quickly deteriorate into vicious villainy. Thus, there is indeed a fine art to practicing what might be termed godly mockery. Since so few people have mastered this art, most critics suggest this device should not be utilized at all. Some even believe it sinful to employ it. That is a case of casting out the baby with the bath water, however. There is no need to be so radical, if one is simply willing to be responsible.

But instead they resorted to throwing their feces at these artists. Oh monkeys.

it’s a clinical findings…….and you’re branding me ! do you ran out of arguments or just instituting a scare tactics.

gusto ko lang po ulitin na yang “what if ginawa sa tatay, nanay, ate, kuya, aso, pusa mo yan” argument ay “non-sequitor” (does not follow). iba ang treatment sa religious iconography at imahe ng totoong tao sa mata ng batas and for good reason because religious images are subjective (malaya tayong gumawa ng relihiyon na sumasamba ng imahe ng kahit ano or sino) while real images involve real people which are capable of real emotion.  

so if ginawa ni Mideo Cruz sa “tatay, nanay, ate, kuya, aso, pusa” ko yan, i will not resort to violence because that is illegal. instead, i would file a case for defamation because putting real people’s images in disrepute is against the law unless of course if my “tatay, nanay, ate, kuya, aso, pusa” are public figures and the context of their “pamba-baboy” satisfies the exception i.e. GMA and Pnoy effigies during SONA.

Tama ba ang Freedom eh dapat gamitin para manakit ng ibang tao?  Yan ang problema sa mundo ngayon eh, puro sarili na lang ang iniisip.  Porke’t may karapatan ang isang tao gusto niya gamitin yung karapatan na yun ng walang pakungdangan sa ibang tao.  Kelangan maging responsable din tayo sa mga ginagawa natin.  Alam naman nitong “artist” na ito na ang Pilipinas ay isang nakakalamang na Kristiyanong bayan.  Ano pa ba rason niya sa ginawa niyang ito kundi magpapansin at manakit ng ibang tao?  Ikaw ba magsusuot ka ng ng puting pananamit ng Ku Klux Klan at pupunta sa isang pulong ng mga African American tapos sabihin mo may karaptan ka mag suot ng kahit anong gusto mo?

ang tema ng sining ni cruz ay paniniwala sa maraming diyos. sana nakita mo ang buong larawan at hindi lamang kung ano ang pinaskil dito sa inquirer na mukha lamang ni jesus at ashtray. parang ganito lang yan kapatid. ang bahay ng halos lahat ng katoliko ay makikitaan mo ng imahe ni jesus (krus, larawan, statwa, huling hapunan) dahil tanda ito ng pagmamahal nila kay kristo. bakit meron kang makikitang budha, fengshui, bling-bling sa pintuan, pusang kumakaway, palakang may pera sa bibig, kalendaryo na mahalay atbp sa mga bahay na iti pero mababasa mo na hindi ito naaayon sa banal na kasulatan? paano nila masasabi na mahal nga nila si kristo at kinikilala nila siya bilang diyos. ang mga magulang natin at ang iba pang respetadong tao sa mundo ay parehas lamang natin na mortal at hindi diyos. sa tingin ko ay isang katoliko din si cruz at ipinamumulat lamang niya ang katotohonan tungkol sa paniniwala sa maraming diyos.

there’s nothing wrong with them actually. but would you like yourself or your children to display and carry pictures of them around for people to see in the name of freedom of expression?

If anyone failed to notice, life is a matter of choices, between good and bad, happy or sad–a continuous decision-making process from birth to death.

Henceforth, whatever our age group today, you and I are the sum total of all decisions we have made in life so far…unhappy nurse?…unhappy engineer?…unhappy call center operator?…unhappy and jobless?…or a happy cancer patient?

As the adage says, “No one can make us angry or hurt us unless we allow or empower them.”

Art can be ugly or beautify. Who decides?

People can BOYCOTT the exhibit if they find it offensive. But don’t CENSOR it because it’s a human rights violation.

Well said, Mr. Pangalangan.

If artworks like that Mideo Cruz’ are only for the intelligent and not for the myopic, I would rather be myopic.

there are other ways to do that without desecrating someone else’s faith. if he’s a true gifted artist, he can do better than just grabbing a picture and messing it up.

i fear that it will only remain a wish my friend because many lawmakers are not stupid, they just don’t have the balls to offend priests who have bully pulpits that have a mandatory audience on Sundays.

mahirap nang banatan ng pari linggo linggo. baka matalo sa sunod na eleksyon.

pero kung tutuusin wala namang nakikinig sa mga pari. katakot-takot na banat kay “Mr. Condom” Juan Flavier dati nung tumatakbo pa sya pero hinde naman ito nakapigil sa kanyang pagiging Senador. top 3 pa nga kung hinde land dahil kay sotto at revilla sr. na sikat lang pero walang natulong sa Senado.

Anyone has the right to be offended.
Anyone has the right to complain and voice their disgust.
But no one has the right to resort to vandalism, arson, threats and intimidation.
And anyone who resorts to these illegal acts are the ones that are putting the phallus on Jesus’ face, figuratively speaking.

If you don’t want to get burned, then don’t touch the fire.
Kung ayaw ninyo ma-offend, then don’t go to the CCP and look at the art.
If no one goes to the exhibit, then the exhibit becomes a failure.

Ang problema sa atin eh, we know exactly what is inside the CCP, punta pa rin tayo. Then we cry that we are offended.

Eh kung mag Megamall na lang kaya tayo.

What is the similarity between Anders Behring Breivik of Norway and Mideo Cruz of the PH? Ans: They are individuals who stand by their convictions that what they have done is right.

And being myopic makes you a better human being huh.

Freedom of Expression comes with  Responsibility and Respect for others. What is the true objective of the artist? Is it a statement to draw a lot of positive or negative reactions? If so, then his objectives are fulfilled. I am sure the artist knows that his “art” will draw a lot of attention from our society.  Society is just going through the process of giving reactions and expressions, in social media, news print, TV, etc. This exercise is a must for our society for it to  learn about art, freedom of expression, respect and responsibility. . 

//there’s nothing wrong with them actually. but would you like yourself or
your children to display and carry pictures of them around for people
to see in the name of freedom of expression?// Those painting didn’t exactly sprout legs and walk along Roxas Boulevard, cherry. They were in an exhibit, in a building. if you don’t want to see them, nobody is forcing you to go. 

oh please..don’t compare mr. cruz to galileo or even to rizal..

// hindi yan art kundi bunga ng isang malaswa at hindi idukadong kaisipan// All I see is a penis, the male reproductive organ. You’re the one who jumps to the conclusion it’s obscene. So who between us is actually malaswa?

Sucks to be you then.

//it’s a clinical findings…….and you’re branding me ! do you ran out of arguments or just instituting a scare tactics.// The Holocaust, Proposition 8, The Inquisition. That’s history. Do care to look it up. 

“What is the similarity between Anders Behring Breivik of Norway and
Mideo Cruz of the PH? Ans: They are individuals who stand by their
convictions that what they have done is right.”

===> You can also say that about Jesus Christ, Churchill, Gandhi and a lot of revolutionaries. However, what Breivik did is criminal and cowardly. So it is important to know the purpose behind the action.

Ang hirap sa atin eh, we cannot go beyond this reflex reaction that Mideo Cruz’s only aim is to insult Jesus and Catholics. Rather than using our God-given brain to think and question rationally, we prefer to go into this hysteria.

No right was violated here that’s why they cannot censor it.

the problem is that that with the interpretation of the “revised penal code” the government should not ask ONLY the catholic church to define obscene and indecent. it should be an opinion of all religions, sects, cultures and tribes here in OUR country. hehehe

well said! i will not scroll down to read anymore pathetic comments from the “myopic”, they go on and on with their same garbage. they ask questions not to be enlightened, but to mock.

This is the most sane reply I’ve read here and in the other thread. Thanks Angel.

Why not? Both their works were banned at one point in time by the Catholic Church for being “blasphemous.”

And a real Christian can do better than resorting to vandalizing property that’s not theirs.

If the church had its way they would have had these great thinkers burned at the stake. The do not like people to think for themselves, that is why Catholics during the past centuries were not allowed to read the bible.

Does that not make you as closed minded as them?

Just a thought.

Well apparently some people still think we’re in the middle of the inquisition.

He has his own sense of what art is, and you have yours.

Same thing with beliefs.Live and let live.

Was it really the church that “banned” his exhibit? I don’t recall reading that in the news.

funny, comparing an artwork that questions idolatry or praying of images, to the ku klux klan?? this country has become more backwards than ever.

I’ve been following the discussion on this topic for days now. I tried to start a philosophical discussion but the “offended” did not present any new valid arguments – mostly it’s the same old – napakasakit, na-offend kami, blah, blah what if it’s your mother father sister faces, etc…, I was even called Satan, the devil, etc….

And I wasn’t even defending Mideo’s work – even saying that personally I do not like it. The issue is censorship. Pero wala, ganun pa din ang reaction.

So it kind of makes it tiring.

yeah, actually the primal meaning of the cross during roman times was “cuciare” or “to torture”. the Romans used it to their advantage most profitably, so I can’t see why one person dying on it gives exclusivity for all “cross” related imageries be attributed to him haha.

“mostly it’s the same old – napakasakit, na-offend kami, blah, blah what
if it’s your mother father sister faces, etc…, I was even called
Satan, the devil, etc….”

In short, argument from emotion fallacy.

The CBCP asked Imelda (yes the murderous dictator’s wife who should be rotting in jail) to pressure the CCP, as I understand it.

//we’re in the middle of the inquisition.//

We are? I guess nobody expected that XD

Well Cruz is not exactly a genius. 
But we do not compare persons here.

We compare history with present. 
We compare values and actions.
We compare beliefs with reason

The artist is questioning why people praise images, which is a very noble question. It is his right to express. Is he having a campaign against Catholicism? Is he instigating violence against a certain religious group? No. Call his art in bad taste or offensive, fine. But to make it illegal and condone vandalism? This country has become more backwards than ever. If someone doesn’t follow your beliefs, why force him?

Thanks, for agreeing. Thanks for the support by repeating and clarifying what I already have stated. God bless.

*imagery

The word “chuch” is the collective term for the group of people who practice Catholicism/Christianity. Given that the people who called for the closing of the exhibit are of the said faith, then aren’t they part of the church?

Edit: this is in response to Lawrence’s post a while ago. Comment box err’d out I guess.

Ok. But my question was “Was it really the church that “banned” his exhibit?”

well said din! i like this article. very erudite. knows the real issue behind the issue.

if i may add, mideo’s defense, in case he got sued in court, is simply: “freedom of expression”. the court cannot ignore this. it is part of our bill of rights which supersedes any penal code. if there is a conflict, the more superior law takes precedence.

someone in this post also said not to compare mideo to galileo or the other renowned thinkers. well you don’t have to, even if some would like to. mideo has rights just like anybody else.

those who think mideo should be censured are backward in their thinking. i must admit some personalities whom i admire share this thinking and i am just sorry. i am for a persons right to free speech and expression. if we let the “backward thinkers” win this round, the philippines will be back in the middle ages. we won’t be any different to countries which are ruled by religion.

And I am sure that, in certain instances, you, too, have stood by your convictions and believed that what you’d done is right. I guess that puts you on equal footing with a mass murderer, huh?

…

Yes I know that. They called for it to be closed. But were they the one that closed it?

So what if:
1. Gay and lesbian groups complain that the RCC teaching of gays and lesbians as being immoral people leading sinful lives to be utterly offensive. Will the RCC stop this particular teaching?

2. A radical Christian fundamentalist group complain that the RCC image of Jesus is offensive as it insults their God because it is an inaccurate depiction of Jesus, will the RCC stop using this image?

I posted this last night on another board. Never got a straight answer. Hindi daw valid, etc….

Censorship is a dangerous thing.

Denial. Denial. The more denial, the more it is made clear. We are all myopic naman talaga. We tend to see it based on our own perspectives. Maliwanag naman at obvious pa.

who is being myopic? the writer? far from it. do you even know what the word means?

As I see it, part of the responsibility was theirs, since they instigated the movement.

Just my opinion though.

 Perhaps if they were the majority…then yes.

In a democracy, fortunately or unfortunately, majority always wins.

In this case, fortunately or unfortunately, majority are against the exhibit.

you have good points, but for the narrow minded catholics, anything that’s not similar to their views is wrong. sila kasi may ari ng katotohanan. they tortured galileo for his discoveries. they started the urban myth that condoms spread HIV. they own the truth. i won’t be surprised if the catholic taliban will be more powerful than any group in this country. pathetic.

Majority wins but majority isn’t always right. That’s why the voices of minority should not be suppressed.

 True. I’ll give you that.

 ”What if the Vatican lends us Michelangelo’s Pieta? If we shun the Pieta, we are all diminished.” Common!!!  You are comparing a nation appreciating between the work of aesthetic and a nation appreciating the work of eccentric. Wake up Man!!

He was making a counter-argument that if the CCP should be neutral and
not exhibit irreligious or in the words of clergy ‘sacrilegious art’
then it also should not exhibit religious art to avoid partisanship.

You are using a totally different case. Why would an image of Jesus insult those who do not believe in him? It is as if everything depends on how we react to things that matters disregarding the ontological dimension of realities. To put profane objects on an image of a person violates the rights of those who revere that person. It is like telling others it is ok to display a  picture of your loved one  with a “pen**” on it just because others have the freedom to express their own thing. It is pure stupidity not to believe in the stupidity of Mideo Cruz

We do have laws right?

Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code on obscene exhibitions and
indecent shows states:

“Exhibit — in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place —
indecent or immoral scenes or shows, including those which offend any
race or religion, and/or are contrary to morals and good customs”

Pretty clear to me.

that is the point. art caters to TRUTH and not on neutrality based on our personal perceptions. our senses dont lie. We know what is true ART and what is plain copy-cat pretentious trying to be “ART”

Manila Archbishop Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales was quoted in a news report two weeks ago that he told Catholics during his radio show in Radyo Veritas to do something about Mideo Cruz’s artwork in order to protect the Catholic Church. Caloocan Bishop Yniguez said the same thing. While the ever colorful retired Bishop Oscar Cruz (who happens to have an opinion on everything this days so please give him something to do) did not mince his words in decrying what he calls a blasphemous creation of a sick mind.

however, i doubt if they ever saw “politeismo” in person. remember that this artwork was displayed for a whole month in the Loyola School of Theology, a seminary in the Ateneo, back in 2002 but no priest ever complained.   

yes, it was the Catholic Church hierarchy that banned it because they gave the marching orders to the flock and the politicians who would not miss a chance to ingratiate themselves with the Church hierarchy in aid of their political ambitions in the next elections.      

they threatened the CCP with violence and hate mail so the CCP had to close it. that is the CCP’s official line. but more likely, the Church pressured Pnoy and thus Pnoy had to subtlety convey the message to the CCP board that they should close it down because Pnoy doesn’t need political heat from the Catholic Church hierarchy because of this.  

Ang CCP ngayon ay CUBETA CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES, sentro ng mga tarugo, puke, vagina, condom, bayag. Mabuhay  freedom of expression OK. 

Ang CCP ngayon ay CUBETA CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES, sentro ng mga
tarugo, puke, vagina, condom, bayag. Mabuhay  freedom of expression OK. 

Even if i do not agree that Catholics are narrow-minded, i would still choose to be narrow-minded than imitate those people who pretend to be intelligent while their actions reveal otherwise

whether it’s art or to blaspheme is not for the church nor government to judge.  It is for those whose interest lie in the development of humanity in general, what the artist represent , what there is to discover as well as collectively take responsibility for the damage it might deliver. I think the president is right in his judgment, the church too, is right, and the ccp is right, but for the moment, the country is not yet ready for a discourse on subjective reality. I live in bacolod, there is very little to take in by way of visual art, why not the CCP send more art to the provinces? there is too much too little in manila these days, lets go to the provinces, where the air is cleaner.

Like everything in the world, religion is something specific; it has a nature. And part of its nature is that it demands absolute devotion to God and unconditional obedience to His will.
What then of the right to free speech? Does religion provide a viable foundation for freedom of expression?
Thanks to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, religionists in the West today do not take religion as seriously as did their forebears; they do not call for blasphemers to be stoned to death or burned at the stake. But western religionists today do call for censorship.
On the premises of religion, there is no right to free speech; there is only the “right” to speak the “truth” as revealed by “God.”
Because western religionists accept religion to some degree—and because religion forbids speech offensive to God in any degree—they are unable to understand, to accept, to apply, or to defend the right to free speech. While some of them claim to uphold the right to free speech, when they are faced with something like “ungodly” broadcasting, they compromise freedom of speech in the name of “family values” (a euphemism for religious values.
Translation: Individuals have a right to free speech but may not criticize religion. Or: Individuals have an unlimited right to free speech, which must be limited as God commands.
On the premises of religion, there is no right to free speech; there is only the “right” to say what is permitted by “God.” This conclusion follows logically not only from the content of religion, but also, and more fundamentally, from its method—that is, from the means by which its content is “known” to be “true.”
How, according to religion, are people to know that God exists, or what He commands, or that they must obey Him? While the holy books claim that He exists and said certain things and must be obeyed, they do not present any evidence in support of these claims. Statements written in books are not themselves evidence that those statements are true. The answer is: by means of faith.
Faith is the acceptance of ideas in the absence of evidence and in defiance of logic.
To know the truths of religion, one must give up one’s mind, accept the ineffable, and acknowledge the inconceivable. In a word, one must reject reason.
Religious “truths” cannot be understood by reason and are not to be put to its test. If it is right to accept God and His laws on faith, then it is wrong to question Him or them with reason. To demand reasons for accepting the tenets of religion is to challenge the very existence and authority of God
Think about it: If a person has faith that God exists, that He must be obeyed, that He must not be offended—and that if He is disobeyed or offended, He must be avenged—how on earth can this person be expected to respect anyone’s “right” to disobey or offend God? What the believer purports to know here is not a trivial matter; it is a matter of the gravest importance in the world: the will and honor of the creator of the universe. There is no reasoning with such a person; his faith will not permit it. Evidence of the destructive nature of his beliefs will not sway him; logical argument will not enlighten him; human suffering and death are of no consequence to him. He is, by choice, immune to reason.
Far from providing grounds for the existence or protection of rights, religion necessarily leads to the systematic denial and violation of rights. When faith is accepted as a means of knowledge, force inexorably follows.
The right to liberty is the right to be free from physical force by other people; we need this freedom because physical force stops us from acting on our judgment—our basic means of living
We can lose certain liberties (as we tragically have been doing and continue to do) yet still work peacefully toward resecuring them—so long as we can say what we think. But to lose freedom of speech would be to lose liberty as such. If we are not free to criticize religion or “offend God,” then we are not free; we are by that fact fully under the rule of religion. “You can do or say anything except that which offends God” is the law of theocracy—that is: rule by men who embrace faith and thus reject reason
There was a time when westerners were unable to criticize religion or “offend God” for fear of punishment or death; it is called the Dark Ages
The tenets of religion are incompatible with the right to free speech. The only way to mix the two in one’s mind is to take neither of them seriously. But not taking religion seriously does not change what religion is or says or means. And not taking freedom of speech seriously does not alter the fact that it is a fundamental requirement of human life.

Following your own argument, then why would i rather choose to listen to the voice of the minority than that of the majority??

The bill of rights was created to protect the minority from the bullying of the mob (majority).

The unclear clause here is who decides if an exhibit is indecent or immoral? Some groups of people apparently find the exhibit exhilirating in a good sense. While others condemn it to be as you said.

Ang CCP ngayon ay CUBETA CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES, sentro ng mga
tarugo, puke, vagina, condom, bayag, titi, . Mabuhay  freedom of expression OK. Freedom for the thought we hate OK.  CUBETA CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES.

I actually find this entry more interesting:

“including those which offend any
race or religion”

Who better to judge that their religion is offended than those members of said religion right?

…what have become of our norms as Filipinos? Many people always play their arguments on the field of legality, as if it is the sole arbiter of what is TRUTH.

CCP,  CUBETA CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES. Total freedom magsalsal ka, magkantutan kayo, magdrowing ka ng puke, bayag, yan ang lugar ng total freedom of expression . Walang pipigil sa iyo. Lahat pwedeng gawin.  kaya CUBETA CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES.

respecting another person’s religion in a democracy does not require that you stop expressing your own belief or non-belief just because it contradicts or offends the religion of others. it only requires you to not impose your belief or non-belief on those who do not share your faith or lack of it.

mideo cruz did not impose his belief or idea upon you. it was just sitting quietly in different art galleries for almost ten years until some rabble-rousing individuals coupled with sensationalist media pulled it out from obscurity. come to think of it, unless you take the time, money and effort to go to the CCP, “politeismo” would be of no consequence to your life. furthermore, you are free to boycott it.

i am Catholic but contrast this to the impositions that the Catholic majority make on people of other faiths in this country like when we hold traffic-stopping religious processions on public roads. Born-again Chrisitians and Protestants view religious icons paraded there as disrepectful to their faith but these are displayed openly in public and they are forced to bear this because they have to use the public road.

contrast this also to the imposition of religious holidays like Holy Week and Ramadan.

remember, our democracy and rule of law does not only cater to religious majorities like Catholics.   

After going through most of the comments here and seeing Filipinos out in the streets and edifices everyday, I see very little RESPONSIBILITY in the freedom they experience…to a certain extent “systematic anarchy” I see.

Don’t we need to promote Responsible Art in this country to develop better human beings in mind, heart and soul?  The art of Mideo, I submit, do not do so.  In part, I see moral relativism.

Looks like this country’s collective mindset is bringing it to the kakungans…waste of divine gifts…being good is not in sight in many instances.  We’ve become too unmindful of others and selfish for our own.

We can still make things better around us by thinking good, saying good, doing good…to others.
What Mideo did and those who agree and disagree with him do not necessarily exhibit the latter statement.

Just thinkin…

Then how are we to be sure that a majority, if not all, of the members of said religion find this said exhibit offending?

There’s a term known as the “Silent Majority” after all.

That would be very partial. Like losing candidates saying they got cheated. And they will decide if they indeed got cheated.

I disagree with the exhibit, but then again, we should respect other people’s freedom.  I agree with everything Pangalangan says. 

I assume you know what “freedom of expression means.” But do you know why we are given freedom to express? and what are we suppose to express???? We are given the freedom to express the TRUTH and nothing else. If you allow persons to freely express LIES, then are we a nation which tolerates what is contrary to truth… 

…

…

Yes. But based on informal polls (and yes I know they are not conclusive), they seem to point to those against the exhibit.

As an example, TV Patrol text poll shows 97% for the closing of the exhibit.

Very well, Atty. Pangalangan. so if tomorrow i go over to your house and post on your gate a drawing of your father and mother naked and engaged in lascivious acts with one another or your mother or father’s or pour wife’s or daughter’s face adorned with the same obscenities that Mideo Cruz planted on the face of Jesus you would defend my right to fight anybody who would take that piece of artistic freedom of expression down from your gate? The CCP is the people’s house…you’ll allow people to defecate on the people you love in your own house?

Lawrence, a majority cannot just vote away a minority’s basic human rights.

well you have a point. but then again we are too relativistic. We decide based on the objective value of an art. if an image of a penis is placed on top of your picture displayed in public, i will not be surprised if you will find it rude. This is because our senses tell it to be so. art caters to the senses, and we get the truth to what our senses tell us through abstraction using our intellect. Only an idiot would see this kind of portrayal exhilarating.

up to you. it’s your freedom.

Great discussions, generally, and hope we can keep it civil. KC nga when one starts branding the other commenter as “myopic” or “bobo,” it brings the discussions to its lowest level. Huwag naman sana.. and let’s stick to the issue, for or against, without insulting anyone, kung pwedi lang? Anyway…

I believe in censorship. And I believe it should start with me.

don’t know about you, but I really like sex, but I think it’s also both beautiful and ugly. There is a right and a wrong way, a good and bad side of sex. And we each may define the parameters or boundaries depending on our individual values and beliefs. But I hope we can agree that censorship is needed, otherwise, carambola tayo, right?

Sex should be limited to closed bedrooms, between the right people and circumstance, and not infront of children or uploaded in YouTube. Sex should also be limited to defined norms of society. However much I like sex, I just cannot do it with everyone or anywhere, regardless. I must control, censor, and subordinate my sexual desires versus a much higher value than myself alone. I believe I cannot exercise freedom in absolute terms because there are consequences.

We know we have all been given the power to make our own choices between good and bad, right and wrong. But you and I know the consequences may be hurtful or damaging to one or both parties. To me, however, there’s only one choice to make, regardless.

Censorship is part of human nature and existence. It is necessary if we are to co-exist peacefully.

And that’s the main idea, these polls are inconclusive. I question the number and nature of the participants of that poll, to be honest.

But I digress, there’s really no way to conclusively end this argument. After all, we do not have the actual numbers as to how many really do want to have the exhibit closed as to those who would not.

I agree..  but have you never acted out of emotion in your entire life??? baka robot ka at hindi TAO.

…

Yes they can…and have. Maybe not in this country but it does happen (points to Middle East)

Unfortunately, in this case, there are also laws that are against Mr. Cruz (minority).

We always pretend to know History just because we know Galileo… Do you know where Galileo really got his idea? It was from a Religious friar who happened to be his mentor…. So next time, read and know more world History and not rely on your elementary History text book

Emotions are very much part of us and it makes us tick. Emotions must be accepted and acknowledged. We cannot deny that once in a while we are angry. In fact, we should say so, “I’m angry!” But emotions must be controlled/censored. Tao po! God bless!

This is similar to the RH Bill issue. The mob (majority) w/c is the Catholic church is shoving their beliefs to the throats of the minority. The mob is bullying the minorities.

The priests at LST have nothing to complain about… they know too well their faith. but to display an art work where everyone can see is a totally different thing.

me too, i would rather be myopic than be intelligent like you…. or are you really?
 

;) Like
 

The CCP have walls sir. Only those who want to see it can see it. I don’t like it. I didn’t see it. 

i disagree… religious images pertain to people too, humans like us. Is not Mary a woman? Is she a lesser woman than our biological mothers? is Jesus a lesser man compared to our fathers and brothers… 

Ayos… tama ka.. i totally agree… pero maganda din magcmba paminsan minsan… hehehe.. pero tama ka… AYOS.

yup that’s exactly what he’s saying. now if he is willing to do that, will you?

Like everything in the world, religion is something specific; it has a nature. And part of its nature is that it demands absolute devotion to God and unconditional obedience to His will.
What then of the right to free speech? Does religion provide a viable foundation for freedom of expression?
Thanks to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, religionists in the West today do not take religion as seriously as did their forebears; they do not call for blasphemers to be stoned to death or burned at the stake. But western religionists today do call for censorship.
On the premises of religion, there is no right to free speech; there is only the “right” to speak the “truth” as revealed by “God.”
Because western religionists accept religion to some degree—and because religion forbids speech offensive to God in any degree—they are unable to understand, to accept, to apply, or to defend the right to free speech. While some of them claim to uphold the right to free speech, when they are faced with something like “ungodly” broadcasting, they compromise freedom of speech in the name of “family values” (a euphemism for religious values.
Translation: Individuals have a right to free speech but may not criticize religion. Or: Individuals have an unlimited right to free speech, which must be limited as God commands.
On the premises of religion, there is no right to free speech; there is only the “right” to say what is permitted by “God.” This conclusion follows logically not only from the content of religion, but also, and more fundamentally, from its method—that is, from the means by which its content is “known” to be “true.”
How, according to religion, are people to know that God exists, or what He commands, or that they must obey Him? While the holy books claim that He exists and said certain things and must be obeyed, they do not present any evidence in support of these claims. Statements written in books are not themselves evidence that those statements are true. The answer is: by means of faith.
Faith is the acceptance of ideas in the absence of evidence and in defiance of logic.
To know the truths of religion, one must give up one’s mind, accept the ineffable, and acknowledge the inconceivable. In a word, one must reject reason.
Religious “truths” cannot be understood by reason and are not to be put to its test. If it is right to accept God and His laws on faith, then it is wrong to question Him or them with reason. To demand reasons for accepting the tenets of religion is to challenge the very existence and authority of God
Think about it: If a person has faith that God exists, that He must be obeyed, that He must not be offended—and that if He is disobeyed or offended, He must be avenged—how on earth can this person be expected to respect anyone’s “right” to disobey or offend God? What the believer purports to know here is not a trivial matter; it is a matter of the gravest importance in the world: the will and honor of the creator of the universe. There is no reasoning with such a person; his faith will not permit it. Evidence of the destructive nature of his beliefs will not sway him; logical argument will not enlighten him; human suffering and death are of no consequence to him. He is, by choice, immune to reason.
Far from providing grounds for the existence or protection of rights, religion necessarily leads to the systematic denial and violation of rights. When faith is accepted as a means of knowledge, force inexorably follows.
The right to liberty is the right to be free from physical force by other people; we need this freedom because physical force stops us from acting on our judgment—our basic means of living
We can lose certain liberties (as we tragically have been doing and continue to do) yet still work peacefully toward resecuring them—so long as we can say what we think. But to lose freedom of speech would be to lose liberty as such. If we are not free to criticize religion or “offend God,” then we are not free; we are by that fact fully under the rule of religion. “You can do or say anything except that which offends God” is the law of theocracy—that is: rule by men who embrace faith and thus reject reason
There was a time when westerners were unable to criticize religion or “offend God” for fear of punishment or death; it is called the Dark Ages
The tenets of religion are incompatible with the right to free speech. The only way to mix the two in one’s mind is to take neither of them seriously. But not taking religion seriously does not change what religion is or says or means. And not taking freedom of speech seriously does not alter the fact that it is a fundamental requirement of human life.

That’s is correct, Sir! You have stated it clearly and rightly! I stood in equal footing with a mass murder vis-a-vis my own convictions.

Yes they have, but why was i able to see it when i have not been there? it is all over the internet only after it was displayed at CCP, but never it was the case when it was displayed at LST

1. RCC has no image showing wooden penis and condoms on their faces. So there is no argument here.
2. RCC image of Jesus does not include rat ears and bloodied eyes. Again your argument does not hold.
I answered your post already. Taking out penises and condoms and rat ears is not censorship. It’s a safety precaution.

putting penises and condoms on your mother’s photo is a basic human right?

Lets just say someone puts a wooden penis on your mother’s photo and mounted it on another photo of a naked body of a prostitute. Then the guy said you cannot take it out because it will violate his freedom of expression. Will you defend him in front of your father?

which country do you know advanced by putting wooden penises and used condoms in their art works?

well for one, you can’t post it on his property. two,  how did you obtain the picture? there is a law against voyeurism. and three, Jesus was not displayed as performing lascivious acts in that exhibit.

democracy is not simply “rule of majority” but it is also “respect for minority” or else we will have no more democracy but a “dictatorship of the majority”.

it really feels good if you are one with the mob ganging up on some hapless minority but can you imagine how it would feel if the mob suddenly turns against you because suddenly you expressed a different idea.

in a democracy, you can only choose to ignore the different idea of another unless and until that person imposes his idea on you.  

who will determine what is responsible art and what is not? you? 

In constitutional law, the courts have determined that, as a matter of history and function, obscenity is “utterly without redeeming social importance.” Obscenity is “not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press.” In other court rulings, the Court found that there are utterances that “are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be deprived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”
Legally speaking your wooden penis cannot stand on its own in a public arena. So you better put it inside your own bedroom and there is no truth to your assertion that it is about censorship.

will the mods please moderate posters like these? they are spamming the comment section. please put in a button so users can flag spam!

For your info, many protestants and born again Christians who sued Mideo. So don’t single it out as a Catholic thing. Your slip is showing.

If not having wooden penises and spent condoms on your mother’s photo is myopic, I’d rather be myopic.

Between being a mass murderer and Mideo’s wooden penises, I’d rather be wrong.

Correct.

“Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of
democracy. However, it is also possible for a minority
to be oppressed by a “tyranny of the majority” in the
absence of governmental or constitutional protections of individual or
group rights.” -wikipedia

Unfortunately, like I keep on saying, in this case, the “constitutional protection” or the law seems to side with the majority.

Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code on obscene exhibitions and
indecent shows

to reddfrog and Jek, I hope your mothers will not be subjected to wooden penises and spent condoms foisted in her photo. Because if that happens, you will have to defend the perp in front of your father, saying the guy is protected by freedom of expression. And I can already imagine what will protect you from your father.

If the only art available is wooden penis and spent condom, I’d rather be myopic.

It only said possible. It’s possible for me to rob a bank. Would that be right? It also said in the absence of governmental protection. We are guaranteed equal protection of the law under the Bill of Rights. 

This is a very good article to contrast an earlier editorial. While one was written with religious fervor, this one was written with calculated logic and law. Now at least, both sides of this argument has said a piece.
Since some Pinoys are enamored with everything “stateside” this might be a good example:
The United States Bill of Rights have the article of right to bear arms, meaning to own a firearm or gun. Admittedly this “right” can be said as the root cause of most if not all crimes and/or killings in the States but still no one there ever amended this right. Anyone can practice their “right”, that cannot be questioned, it is what happens “after” that can be determined. If a man uses his right to bear arms and owns a gun and kills his attacker, no one can stop or censor him from doing so but then he will have to face judgment “after” the act.

And so Mideo practiced his “right to free expression”, now he has to face whatever consequence may befall him. But that doesn’t mean that anyone of us can stop anything anyone would want to say or do. It is our right to express whatever it is we want to express, but it is also our responsibility to face the consequences of our actions. If it is against the laws of the State, then punishment will be carried out. But it should never be influenced by the stand of a Church.

Simple as that. Like I said, anyone is free to voice their own opinion so feel free to comment, but I will reserve my “right” not to reply to sloganeering zealots haha.

I guess your pertaining to section 4 of the bill of rights:

Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom
of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances.

I’m no lawyer but the same section seems to ensures others to seek redress from their grievances like say, the closing of an exhibit they deem insulting to their religion?

basahin mo nga. san nya sinabi na absolute ang freedom of speech?

No I’m not. I’m pertaining to the right not to be oppressed by a “tyranny of the majority”.

CLEARLY the author defend the freedom of the artist to express his thought through arts and of the Cultural Center of the Philippines where it shows his work. Certainly the artist showed through his work the impact of the conflicting issues between the state that promotes what the church abhors. And who are the person who can and should interpret his work? What has the artist found upon the state of the society itself and  those that affects it? Should our society imposed certain level to the artist  works that should be agreed upon by the whole so that it be called as art? Certainly the CCP has to put shelter on it for its one of its function. Let the artist express his work, if you like it buy it if not let it rot.

The art exhibit has been displayed with approval by those Board of Directors of CCP who believed for freedom of expression.  Freedom of expression for them maybe has no limitation.  Now that CCP BODs and the infamous artists who started this mess, should accept without hard feelings whatever condemnation words they would hear from those people who demanded for censorship of the exhibit. PATIGASIN NYO NALANG MGA APOG AT MUKHA NYO TUTAL PINAKITA NYO NARIN LANG NMAN KUNG ANONG URI NG PANANAW MERON KAYO KAYA TANGAPAN NYO DIN ANO MAN PANG AALISPUSTA AT PANLALAIT ANG GAWIN SA INYO (malamanG damay pati mga kapamilya nyo).

I don’t think that’s in the Bill of Rights Gordon. lol.

do we really need to say we are intelligent?rather than reasonable to a normal human being. with all those history of Freedom of expressions..oh my buhay.! look at Americans! they don’t seem to insult their sensible peers just to say it’s ART! 

Actually even that of mass murderers and serial killers cannot be disregarded too simply. The Son of Sam killer said that his neighbor’s dog told him to kill people, and truly so it was a criminal act according to law. There would be some who would protest that the man was just insane, but we cannot deny him if that was really his “truth”, we can only try him for the act itself.

What if our president got “pikon” and decide to go after those artists who make Noynoy effigies to be burned and spat on? Why, that’s an insult to his person and position, some would think. Pero, since he is a mature person, he knows that the effigy is just a mere symbol and a metaphor of his government, he doesn’t “make patol” to them. He knows na “protest” lang yan.

Thank you for wishing something like that to a person you barely know, that’s so very christian of you.

sinong nagturo sa’yo na di malaswa and mag lagay ng male organ sa picture ng mukha. kung ganun pala eh bakit ka pa nagdadamit. mag hubo ka na lang tutal di naman pala malaswa…

Yeah, because there’s no such thing as this as well:

Quoting Lawrence:
“Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of
democracy. However, it is also possible for a minority
to be oppressed by a “tyranny of the majority” in the
absence of governmental or constitutional protections of individual or
group rights.” -wikipedia

Because we are protected by this.
SEC. 1.
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

And yes, you are free to sue Mr. Cruz. The penalty is 6 months in jail or a fine maximum of 12000 pesos. Not to vandalize his work or ask him to keep it to himself.

reasoning with fundamentalists is like asking a shark about to eat you not to do it because you have a family to take care of. it’s impossible.

But again… it is for a court of law to decide what is obscene, not you, not me, not a mob threatening arson. please don’t hurt me. :P

fyi,  i’m no catholic. the point is have some respect especially to other people’s belief at wag nyong babuyin ang paniniwala ng iba kung di kayo nainiwala sa kanilang pananampalataya.

ERRATUM: 6 years

I don’t want to offend anyone of his early parole in case he gets convicted.

right. so you know that religious images and statues offends the belief of
protestants? I am a protestant. So i could file against the catholic church and
all the catholics because I am offended that you will erect and post images and
statues all over the country. hm? how will you respond?

make patol? ang arte ha. i will make patol to you na. hindi nag connect ang sample mo. it’s an accepted fact sa pinas na ang presidente ay binababoy ng mga mkakaliwa. kahit sino pa ilagay mo dyan bababuyin ng mga mkakakaliwa yan… pero kelan pa naging accepted na ang religious icons ay puedeng babuyin? sige nga, lagyan mo ng etits si Manalo sa nuo, tingnan na lang naten kung ano gawin ng mga Iglesia..

atty. pangalangan’s father is not an icon. his gate is PRIVATE PROPERTY. the CCP belongs to the PUBLIC.

but that is the thing about freedom of expression, unpopular speech is just as protected as popular speech is.

wala namang nagsassabi na wag kayong maging matalino or bawal magkuro kuro. by all means i would encourage our artists to be creative. but please have some respect to other people’s belief.

yes sir but then again, you are not a court of law. it is not the mob that gets to decide what is obscene.

What if the majority insist that they are right,with no regards to the law,because their common good is superlative than existing civil means of settling disputes ? Are we going retroactive ?

the court does… not a mob.

sir what you are suggesting is ANARCHY.

haha.. your logic is flawed. i am not a lawyer so i do not know what law is broken here. But an artist’s representation is different from a real photo. totoong photo ba ni Jesus yung nasa exhibit? hindi. gawa lang din yun ng isang tao.

but what if the image of jesus DOES insult those who do not believe in him? how would you know that it does not? that is the point of the freedom of expression guaranteed under the constitution.

but again, that just would bolster the mob mentality to rely on the poll, right?

catholic ka ba? i hope that’s not what is being taught in your religion.

that is the rational of not having an corps of armies…Christians are mature people they can defend themselves !

but we are likewise a republican state. and a republican state adheres to the rule of law, does it not? last time i checked the rule of law does not condone destruction of another’s property, threats, and coercing someone else to do something against their will, be it right or wrong.

people like you never get to see the end of the tunnel. kasi di kau mag-pro-progress kung ganyan kau..

the states in the middle east have yet to all become democratic and republican.

you are not getting what she truly says. Please read again.

saan? kahit saan naman i-display marami pa ring pipigil jan eh..

and unfortunately, you are not the court. the mob is not the court. the persons who vandalized the artworks are not the court. and the majority is not the court. last time i checked, there is a need for judicial determination before something can be said to be obscene. otherwise, we all might as well run amok.

his only aim to insult Jesus and Catholics…..there you are !

but does that right to seek redress involve threats of defalcation, arson and bodily harm?

Anyone has the right to be offended……WHAT ????? you’re tired now reddfrog.

as the good dean said, it is one thing to succumb to pressure from the majority who are offended. IT IS QUITE ANOTHER TO SUCCUMB TO THREATS OF VIOLENCE, DEFALCATION, BODILY HARM AND VANDALISM.

then why does not anyone take him to court?

One of these days.. Me and my fellow protestants and born-again Christians will file a lawsuit against catholics for displaying images and icons because it offends our belief about statues and idols. It will be based on Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code.

sometime, it can be a death warrant…..

Essay August 11, 2011

United Nations Affirms the Human Right to Blaspheme By Austin Dacey

…but the UN will protect our right to freedom of conscience.

Austin Dacey

Austin Dacey is a representative to the United Nations for the International Humanist and Ethical Union and the author of The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life and The Future of Blasphemy: Speaking of the Sacred in an Age of Human Rights (forthcoming).

Having followed the debates on religion and
freedom of expression at the United Nations over the last several years,
I have become accustomed to passing on bad news, such as a decade of
resolutions by the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly
“combating the defamation of religions.” Now that there is some good
news, almost no one has noticed.

Late last month, the UN issued a new statement on the extent of
freedom of speech under international law. It says that laws restricting
blasphemy as such are incompatible with universal human rights
standards.

The statement came from the Human Rights Committee, the body of
eighteen “independent experts” mandated to monitor compliance with the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or ICCPR, the 1966
human rights treaty that provides for freedom of opinion and expression
and other fundamental rights. The Committee’s general comments
represent authoritative interpretations of the provisions of the ICCPR.
Unlike the highly-publicized resolutions produced by the Human Rights
Council and the General Assembly, the provisions of the ICCPR are
legally binding to its more than 165 parties.

The detailed 52-paragraph statement, General Comment No. 34,
is the outcome of two years of intense debate among representatives of
governments and civil society organizations. The Committee’s previous
comment on freedom of opinion and expression, in 1983, was only four
paragraphs long. In addition to taking up such matters as treason,
defamation of heads of state, “memory laws” enforcing an official
version of history, and the rights of bloggers, Comment 34 comes down
strongly against religious limitations on speech. It does so not only by
asserting that the right to free speech is foundational to a free and
democratic society as well as to the protection and promotion of other
rights. It also appeals explicitly to the values of freedom of
conscience and equality before the law.

According to paragraph 48, “Prohibitions of displays of lack of
respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws,
are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific
circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.”
Article 20, paragraph 2 calls on states to prohibit “advocacy of
national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility, or violence.” The Comment is careful to
require that any restrictions must not violate the Conventions’
guarantees of equality before the law (Article 26) and freedom of
thought, conscience, and religion (Article 18).

Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to
discriminate in favor of or against one or certain religions or belief
systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over
non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be
used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary
on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.

Laws against blasphemy or “religious insult” (found throughout the
world, including half of all Council of Europe member states) are
inherently discriminatory against secularists and religious dissenters.
They are discriminatory in that secularists have no legal recourse—nor
should they—when the words of believers offend their moral
sensibilities, nor can gays take the publishers of Leviticus to court
for the spiritual affront to them that it surely is. Skeptics and
heterodox believers, on the other hand, do have an Article 18 right to
live and speak according to their conscience even when it offends the
orthodox.

Paragraph 32 of the new comment also cautions states against
employing a narrow notion of so-called public morals to restrict speech,
effectively ruling out laws that defer to a particular faith tradition:
“the concept of morals derives from many social, philosophical and
religious traditions; consequently, limitations… for the purpose of
protecting morals must be based on principles not deriving exclusively
from a single tradition.”
The implication of these recommendations is that controversies over
blasphemy are not just conflicts between “free speech” and faith, but
clashes between competing claims of conscience. This stance is defended
by the International Humanist and Ethical Union and elaborated in my forthcoming book, The Future of Blasphemy: Speaking of the Sacred in an Age of Human Rights.
The message of General Comment No. 34 is not only a clear
condemnation of the blasphemy laws of countries such as Pakistan, which
despite having ratified the ICCPR in 2008, continues to impose the death
sentence for blasphemy and “defiling” the name of Prophet Muhammad. The
Comment equally repudiates the decisions of the European Court of Human
Rights in Strasbourg, which has upheld Austrian, British, and Turkish
laws against blasphemy and religious insult by invoking a sui generis
right to “respect for the religious feelings of believers.”
The major disappointment in the comment, in my view, is its failure
to address hate speech laws, which in many countries function as de
facto restrictions on blasphemy and sacrilege. Theoretically, we can
distinguish between bashing a belief and bashing its adherents. Yet,
absent some precise international norm, “advocacy of religious hatred”
could mean anything from provoking imminent violence against individuals
(criminalized even under the First Amendment) to the effectively
unverifiable standard of being motivated by religious hostility, as
under the UK’s Crime and Disorder Act of 1998. Convictions against
writer and activists such as Paul Giniewski in France, Lars Hedegaard in
Denmark, and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria demonstrate that
hate speech laws are ripe for abuse even in liberal democracies.
Civil society activists now have the final legal authority of the
United Nations on their side as they press governments to come into
compliance with their treaty obligations and bring an end to the
criminalization of blasphemy.

Reynold’s News in a 1959 headline said, “This is not art — it’s a joke in bad taste.” – JacksonPollock

Another of Basquiat’s pieces, “Irony of Negro Policeman” (1981), is intended to illustrate how African-Americans have been controlled by a predominantly Caucasian society. Basquiat sought to portray how complicit African-Americans have become with the “institutionalized forms of whiteness and corrupt white regimes of power” years after the Jim Crow era had ended.[23] Basquiat found the concept of a “Negro policeman” utterly ironic. It would seem that this policeman should sympathize with his black friends, family and ancestors, yet instead he was there to enforce the rules designed by “white society.” The Negro policeman had “black skin but wore a white mask”. In the painting, Basquiat depicted the policeman as large in order to suggest an “excessive and totalizing power”, but made the policeman’s body fragmented and broken.[24] The hat that frames the head of the Negro policeman resembles a cage, and represents how constrained the independent perceptions of African-American’s were at the time, and how constrained the policeman’s own perceptions were within white society.  - Basquiat

New York’s Museum of Modern Art hosted a Symposium on pop art in December 1962 during which artists like Warhol were attacked for “capitulating” to consumerism. Critics were scandalized by Warhol’s open embrace of market culture. – Andy Warhol

An American punk rock singer-songwriter, who performed and recorded with many groups during his career. His extremely politically incorrect lyrics, which often covered subjects such as misogyny, pedophilia and racism, polarized listeners and created varied opinions of him within the highly politicized punk community. When questioned about his music and concerts, Allin often replied that he was trying to make rock music “dangerous” again. GG Allin is perhaps best remembered for his notorious live performances, which often featured transgressive acts, including coprophagia, self-mutilation, and attacking audience members. – GG Allin

OFF TOPIC:

my replies to some comments here are being displayed as a new post.. sorry about that..

edit: or is there something wrong with my browser?? T-T

then again, in light of these circumstances… LET THE COURT DECIDE! you are not the court. and it is not for us to say what is obscene and for mr. cruz to keep his assemblages or what not in his house. and although i disagree with you, i am not telling you to shut the f*ck up, i’m going to burn your house or wreck your property because i respect your opinion and you are entitled to it.

that is part of the point of mr. pangaldaman. we cannot always succumb to pressure from the majority, or to pressure from someone harboring an opinion that just happens to be more popular than one’s own without throwing the bill or rights outside the window.

= )
That’s something I like about Protestants, they don’t worship statues and icons.

that’s why we have laws, to keep man in his place. the majority rule applies only when something is put to a vote like in an election or referendum. other than that we have the government to enforce the law and govern according to the law and everyone should abide by the law because the law was put into effect by man himself.

the common good does not necessarily translate to what the majority wants. was not Jesus crucified because the people clamored for it? when you let the majority rule outside the bounds of the law, that is mob rule.

in a civilized world, the law is supreme, not man. the birth of western civilization started in rome when the romans started forming their government not unsimilar to what we have now. they also have a senate and the courts. in modern times, only countries ruled by law are prosperous, like the US, European countries, Japan, China, etc. Countries which bypass and abuse the law are always left behind, mostly Asian countries like the Philippines, India, Myanmar, etc. and most African and South American countries and countries like Mexico and Haiti. when you circumvent the law, there will be inequality.

i thought born-again christians don’t believe in statues and idols so how will that offend you?

I do not pay taxes to maintain a cultural center that allows exposition of “art” that disrespect and insults my religion.  If they continue to do so, congress should pass a law protecting us from such trash.

but does he deserve to be threatened bodily… his art burnt and destroyed just because he is not, in your opinion, gifted? what he did, messing up a picture, as you said, is an expression of what his opinion is.

korek. di naman ikon nanay at tatay ko ah. :P

dude, the narrow minded catholics own the truth in this country. if there’s something they’re not happy about or against their beliefs, sorry you lose. the combination of bishops and corrupt government officials make this country go back to the dark ages.

come on. if you use someone’s photo without asking permission, you are violating some privacy and copyright law and you can be sued for that. if that photo was taken in a public place and used, i can’t do anything about that. to get back at the perpetuator, i’ll do the same thing to him. 

threatening someone is against the law. vandalism is against the law. you cannot use an illegal means to get what you want. you can protest. fight for your beliefs with the same guarantee of freedom of expression. live and let live.

as i said it offends me because my belief is that no statues should be held sacred.. and i see them everyday.. and why are there so many saints?? why do we need “patrons” to worship our God?? I cannot take it anymore!! this is blasphemous!!!

many. installation arts about sex, violence, and in the case of the one by cruz, idolizing images. i don’t find his artwork tasteful, but there’s sense to it. the narrow minded catholics only zoom in to the penis and condom.

such narrow minded response :)

expression is within. who’s gonna judge that what you believe in or not is true? one man’s beliefs may not be acceptable to another. but both are equally guaranteed by the law to express them.

you are only saying that mideo’s work are lies because you got offended. in the same manner, mideo was offended by the way the church is wielding its power over the people thru mind control via their so-called christ’s teachings when some church leaders are not following these teachings themselves.

art is supposed to liberate the mind via another medium. and this is how mideo expressed his view on the way the catholic church operates in the philippines. it was meant to open our eyes.

don’t get me wrong. i am talking about the catholic church in the philippines and its leaders, not the catholic faith. i am catholic. but i don’t think you need a SUV to help the poor.

And do non-Catholics pay taxes to protect Nazarene devotees from harm even as they tie up traffic for hours, inconveniencing the rest of the population? Maybe you should immigrate to the Vatican and pay your taxes there. I guess they’ll appreciate your intolerant train of thought over there.

The next time you feel like posting, do listen to yourself first and see if you’re making any sense.

paying taxes is a duty. the idea is you trust your government that the taxpayers’ money is put to proper use. the CCP is created by law. funding of the CCP is prescribed by law. once a law is created, it has to be enforced. write to your congressman and see what he/she can do to amend the law that will abolish the CCP. but whoever will do this is an idiot. it’s better to abolish the phil. movie industry which produces nothing but trash and dumb films.

a new bill should not violate inalienable rights, like our bill of rights. it is part of the most supreme law of our land. freedom of expression is in the bill of rights. no law should be in conflict with the bill of rights. if there is a law against disrespecting and insulting any religion, that law is inferior to the bill of rights. the bill of rights has precedence.

relax. take a deep breath. the whole world is made of different people. you just have to accept that there are others with different views to yours. respect is the key. if you learn to respect other people’s beliefs, and still stick to what you believe in, there won’t be any trouble.

it is overacting  to sue mideo  cruz in court.  what is enough is to remove his kulo art which to my thinking is offensive and ugly.  If we don’t remove i, it  can be liken to a child who does not receive any reprimand or scolding when he says  f—–u, a freedom of his expression.  boycotting is to reprimanding, scolding is to removing , and suing is to spanking the child. which is the best reaction to this brouhaha?

i can only agree with mr. pangalangan as he pointed out various fallacies in this “kulo” debate.  i am a liberal… perhaps very liberal and yet i don’t like the image of christ having a phallus on his nose.  but I can tolerate it on the thinking that it is the artist’s right to convey his message.  i do not necessarily have to accept that message as truth.  it is part of our dialectical as a people.  culture is never stagnant.  tolerance is what is needed in this society for culture to evolve. cultural dynamism could only be achieved in an atmosphere of tolerance and not on some irrational religious fervor.

C’mon, Catholics… Even The Bible tells you not to worship those icons. What’s the fuss.

The means used by M.Cruz is the culprit as in a good end does not justify a bad means. His collage is still representational and, therefore could be understood on surface value, the flint that ignited the hate of the non-artist viewers,especially, Catholics.
One look at the artwork and there’s no mistaking it’s outrageous, “blasphemous.” Imagine such unthinkable objects prominently logged about Jesus’ image  Jesus is caricaturized, reduced  to a clown, a joke. Who wouldn’t be repulsed?
But then, let’s pause awhile and think of this partial quote from Chris Millado, CCP VP: “…Should I judge the artwork for what I saw or or should I try to understand why it is affecting this way. This is the experience
of art.”
Why is Jesus in the painting shedding tears of blood? Think. What have the condom and the male genital
 to do with his tears? Think. Look at the face of Jesus. He is very, very downhearted. Why?  He is apparently asking: “Is this the world I saved? How they have gone so libertine (male genital) sowing their seeds immorally believing in the power of the condom and prevention of birth (abortion, RH Bill) to stop population growth! How they believe so much in their power more than they do mine! How they have forgotten my word!
I understand why painter Cruz has used representational style: his message is important, significant and very, very relevant. He could have used the safer grounds of dadaism, surrealism, abstract.
.

Sinasabi po ba ninyo na walang limitasyon ang freedom of expression?

We are a democracy, so majority rules.  Sorry na lang mga Catholic haters.  Until such time as you are the majority, the beliefs and sensibilities of Catholics will be respected here.

too much brohaha … is your freedom limitless?
nakalimutan mo n bang social responsibility?

social responsibility is not enshrined in law. you’re the one having too much brouhaha in this issue. leave the artist and his exhibit alone. freedom is limitless if it is within the bounds of the law.

has mideo committed a crime? if so, by all means, kill him. but if not, leave the guy alone and let him do his work.

C’mon anarchonihilist …You should also know when a piece is an artistic social commentary, and when it’s just a trash pretending to be a socially-relevant art.

Tsk, tsk,tsk. I did tell you to listen to yourself first. Are you sure you understood Mr. Pangalangan’s column? Please read it again, and slowly, and with a thick dictionary beside you. Good luck!

and what do you have to think about an artwok that is too literal?

But the Revised Penal Code bows down to our Constitution… you should know this thing we call “Freedom of Expression”- it’s in our Bill of Rights… It’s about time the SC strikes down this ancient and obsolete codal provision, which, by the way, dates back to the Spanish colonial period… probably the same law the “Damasos” used to strike down Rizal’s “Noli” and “El Fili” as blasphemous - Which we universally acknowledge as the books that influenced the Katipuneros, the group that sparked the revolution that resulted to the Democracy you now enjoy. Pretty clear to me.

“The seventh fallacy is that the CCP violates religious neutrality by exhibiting irreligious art. So conversely it violates religious neutrality if it exhibits religious art?” 

It is not religious neutrality that is being asked, but religious tolerance.

May I ask Mr. Pangalangan for his picture? I would like to put a penis on his nose  on it and pass it around around to all my friends. I would just like them to see how good an artist I can be.

Portraying those who treacherously attacked a group of faithfuls peacefully practicing their faith as VICTIMS and those attacked Catholics as “BULLY”. So when you are attacked and you fought back, you’re now a bully. I hope you will consistently carry that position in all your columns.

“The second fallacy is that it would have been okay if the offending art was displayed in a private gallery, but not at the CCP.” 

CCP or not, it will never make any difference. No change of venue will ever change the fact that it is clear display of religious bigotry.

“The first fallacy is the view that if many people find it offensive, then it can be censored.”

Then put the Islamic faith on exhibit, with the same treatment. And even if not as many Muslim faithfuls will cry foul, I’m pretty sure you will never say the same thing.

Free speech has limits. Defamation/libel, fighting words, subsumed under the doctrine of “clear and present danger, and obscenity.

Under the revised penal code, materials offensive to religious feeling is a crime.

You can pick which one you want to apply, but the works of Mr. Cruz can be banned either on the “clear and present danger doctrine, obscene, or marerials that are offensive tor religious sect.

So, Mr. Pangalangan, Duterte was right after all: the dirty finger is “freedom of expression”.

Defamation/libel depends strictly on meaning. For example, if the defendant (the artist) claims that his works are made of objective content or if the work is indeed intended for objective content or an expression of facts then it can be seen as defamatory. On the other hand, the art exhibit, being a form of vague and nonfactual information cannot be seen as defamation. In essence, the burning of flags and effigies are the same.

What do you think if  your picture together with the picture of mideo cruz, the board member of the ccp who approved that “kulo” be exhibit with condom, mickey mouse, etc. what will be your reactions. Perhaps you will  boycott that picture, and you will charge them in the court. The Catholic Christians deserve to be respected when it comes to their faith. Please respect also the rights of others.

Was Mr. Duterte right all along? His dirty finger is freedom
of speech? Or it’s only ok so long as it’s Catholicism that’s
denigrated? 

anarchonihilist, you are IGNORANT or MISINFORMED.Do not judge the law for there is one lawgiver. Who are you to judge another?The right question you should ask to those who know God is:1. Do you love God? 2. Do you love your Neighbor? The first 3 commandments tells us how to worship and love God while the rest  same tells us how to love our neighbor. Don’t tell us whom we worship for you do not know what catholics believe, worship and live. Most pf all, do not feed us with your ignorance. Go back to the right question.

i hope Mr Cruz apply his “creativity” to other religions as well and let us see how they will react… then you you can say again your a victim… maybe his art was to stir anger and hatred therefore it worked by exploding people to fight back to defend what they believe in. Including me.

so where do you classify putting a dick on someone’s face?

lolz!!! and you become successor of mideo cruz…..well you can always do so to express your sentiments, para rin lang nagsunog ka ng effigy ng presidente, so long as proper yung venue mo. otherwise, pwede ka makasuhan ng unjust vexation.mIm

You are IGNORANT or MISINFORMED.Do not judge the law for there is one lawgiver. Who are you to judge another?The right question you should ask to those who know God is:1. Do you love God? 2. Do you love your Neighbor? The first 3 commandments tells us how to worship and love God while the rest tells us how to love our neighbor. Don’t tell us whom we worship for you do not know what catholics believe, worship and live. Go back to the right question.

Catholic
spirituality is full of saints and of talk about becoming saints because that
is precisely what life is about. We ought to behave like sons of God. Blasphemy is when we live wickedly. How it felt when somebody tells you you are worshiping an idol: By definition WORSHIP MUST BE ABOUT GOD, not my amusement…All up front, the service performed on behalf of an audience relaxing in theater-style seating…Much of what passes for WORSHIP TODAY IS NOTHING MORE THAN LIGHTLY BAPTIZED ENTERTAINMENT, AND THEREFORE IS IDOLATROUS.It is idolatry from which serious churches must distance themselves. – Terry

Privacy law.

well, assuming your line of thought is correct, you are still missing the point.. a president is just like any of us, a human being… but to disrespect an image of Jesus, the person we beleive as GOD, then it is a different matter altogether.

As far as I can remember, it goes like this,,,, I hate what you say,,, but I will defend to the death, your right to say it. But, to mention Islam in the same breath as logic, freedom, commonsense, democracy, human rights or anything that is beyond the 5th century,, I’m not sure I get it.

tama…. magpakarami muna sila ng todo

sorrry po… kayo na lang

I am sure it does not because if you have nothing to do with Jesus, then you would not dare care about him, right??? how could you be insulted then?? But we care so much about our Jesus, thus to disrespect his image means a lot to us CATHOLICS… Mideo could have used another image but never the image of OUR CHRIST…

call us narrow-minded, call us a mob, a bully, or anything like these… it is your freedom to do so, if that is freedom indeed.. but at least we have absolute principles where we can lean on unlike those who rely on their intelligent selves who are like tiny boats, tossed by different beliefs and ideas, not knowing where they are going and to whom they belong…

hey, when we speak of TRUTH, it is really the truth not according to how you personally judge it to be… Truth is true becasue it really is…  as Catholics we believe that truth pertains to God, and all the other truths must be a participation of that absolute TRUTH… yet, even these other truths are not contrary to the absolute TRUTH. We are not like Rene Descartes who believes absolutely on the truth not of realities themselves but on the truth of his consciousness alone… if Catholics are like this, then we would have fallen to relativism where the belief of one may or may not be the belief of others.. Thus, your truth may not be true to me…i pity the Church if it had been the case

Ridiculous!!!!! 

As a student I side the artistic side and the right of freedom of expression of the artists. As a believer of God. I will never worship nor pray to any wooden things and poster that is made of paper. Artist’s made the image of Christ for thousand of years before and artists have right to deconstruct the image for enrichment of knowledge not to offend churches nor religious people. Again, I will not worship a piece of paper and a wooden, metal or plastic things. I believe in the bible I believe in Christ. My faith will not be shaken by this but instead it made me stand still and widen my knowledge and my manners.

As a Protestant, I agree with Arcilla – I find all those statues of saints idolatrous and offensive.  And many of them can be found in government buildings and public schools.  I think they are disrespectful to my religious beliefs.  Can I go to court and sue to have them taken down from government buildings and schools? Can we sue catholics over their public display?

If you dislike the artwork so much please as a student explain it rationally, because I can explain to you his work rationally without looking so much at penises, condoms, and pornstars and etc. I cant understand why adults doesnt understand the work of mideo cruz.

As a Protestant, I agree with Arcilla – I find all those statues of saints idolatrous and offensive.  And many of them can be found in government buildings and public schools.  I think they are disrespectful to my religious beliefs.  Can I go to court and sue to have them taken down from government buildings and schools? Can we sue catholics over their public display?

when you kiss your wife’s or your kids’ photo printed on a piece of photographic paper, are you kissing or loving the photographic paper or your wife and kids?Catholics don’t worship the wooden statue, they worship God; we don’t worship saints or Mary, we only venerate. Worship belongs only to God. Like you love your parents differently from the way you love your children or your wife. Sexual love is confined to your wife not to your parents or children. So Catholics worship God, and only venerate Mary and the saints–those are two different levels of spiritual relationship. If you believe in the Bible go to Exodus 25: 18, where God instructed Moses to make two gold plated cherubims before the place of propitiation or the ark of the covenant…Go to 1Kings 7 where God instructed Solomon to place carved lions, oxen, and cherubims and pomegranates in God’s temple.  Go to Exodus again where God instructed Moses to place a bronze serpent on a pole for the Israelites to owrship as a prefiguration of Jesus Christ on the cross vilified like a serpent but in reality the source of salvation just as the Israelites were cured when they raised their eyes to Moses’ bronze serpent. What is wrong is not to make carved images but to worship them.Read Karl Keating’s Fundamentalism and Catholicism to understand the Black Legends or historical lies leveled against the Catholic Church throughout history.

it is remembrance I believe but the point here is that why would someone put faith on a piece of paper? and get offended immediately without even thinking ” ay wait bakit niya hineram ung imahe nito?” “bakit kaya?” “ano ung dahilan?” “Ano simbolismo nitong mga astrays na tite na to, anu ung mga condom bakit nakalagay sa krus” As a student I step back to my faith and step forward in learning. I became tolerated to it because I wanted to know first rather than drop my faith and shout ” demonyo yan me gawa niya, katoliko ba yan, or ipatanggal nyo tong gawa niya. The point here is that As a student I will go to ccp to learn not to go to church. I expect something more than what to expect. Also as a student I research about the symbolisms before I say something that I will regret. It didnt offend me rather it made me say “Oo nga naman, sa history natin inabuso ng mga friars ang kapangyarihan nila at inilagay ang diyos sa likod ng kapangyarihan nila” mga ganun na I found out when I took notes reasearch it and then there I believed that it isnt blasphemous it was well researched and drafted. ganun lang po.

i can paint the picture of his parents, duhhhhhh, just like Miedo painted his pictures, duhhh?that’s the parallelism, your house is your private property and sacred to you, the CCP is public property which means it belongs to the public, the people, duhhhh, therefore you cannot attack the sensibilities of the public who own it, it is the property of the public, duhhhhhh!? lascivious acts woudl be my form of freedom of expression, I can show whatever i want, in the same way that Mideo Cruz pput a penis on face of Jesus as his freedom of expression, duhhhhhh? are miedo cruz backers this intellectually challenged?…

the common good are for the satisfaction of the many…e.g. peace and order.If the many can not conform with the outcome of the disputes because it does not please them….they might as well , perpetuate the conflict and if it push comes to shove,,who do you think will win ? If you are in the street,driving a sedan car,then suddenly a big truck swerves on your lane,surely,you will act on in your instinct..otherwise,your obituary will read as such So and so Died defending his/her Rights,,very noble but did not understood the cold reality.

you can paint his parents, fine. do whatever you want, duhh. the public is not only the catholic church, duhhh. therefore, not everyone is being attacked, duhh. if you want to show what you want, then do it, duhh. are religious nuts this daft? btw, nice of you to show your true colors. so you are so offended by what Mideo did that you would do him one better and be more bastos. nice. ipokrito.

I think it is time we who are non-Catholics start to push
back and really enforce the Constitution and the separation of Church and
State.  We should sue in Supreme
Court that the government enforce the Constitution, and 1) ban public prayer in public
schools, 2) ban teachers from injecting religious teachings in their
classrooms, especially in science, 3) ban the display of religious icons
(crosses, saints, etc.) in government buildings, 4) ban public prayers in government
agencies, and 5) ban government agencies from sponsoring religious festivals,
etc.  
     In the US, where there is
separation of Church and State, the Supreme Court has ruled that these are all
unconstitutional, but we accept this in the Philippines because no one has
fought it in courts.  Well if the Catholic
majority continues to insist on censoring artists, opposing secular bills like
the RH and divorce bills, etc. we should fight to limit their influence by
enforcing the Constitution in areas where it is clear that legal precedent has
already said they are in the wrong. 
Or should we just tear up the Constitution and stop pretending we are a
liberal democracy?

pwede mong gawin yan, ikaw nakaisip niyan e, ganyan ang panlaban mo sa artwork ni Mideo. hindi mag vandalize, name-calling, death threats, etc.

Kulo organizers and Mideo produced images designed to cause revulsion and pandering on the baser instincts of people. Now they got what they wanted and it attracted the kind of people they were aiming at. Your idiots just came out of the “absolute freedom” of Pangalangan kind.

Funny. We all have differing comments of blasphemy, etc. But who are we to say that we know what God REALLY looks like?

Art is as far as it goes. The picture/s and statue/s the majority so avidly defend are also, ironically, only artworks, depictions of pre-modern, Eurocentric, Constantinople-hopping artists, who thought that our God should have blond hair and blue eyes.

At least, the artist got what he wanted. Turn this country upside down. Regardless who wins (or sins), he’s probably the last person laughing on his way to the toilet.

These ignoramuses don’t appreciate wooden penises and spent condoms and rat ears. Poor people, they need to be educated on the finer art of freedom of expression.

Nothing of that sort I think. Mideo can go on and try wnother exhibition on the type of grafitti found in public latrines where they draw vaginas and penises. But these are too mild since they don’t desecrate any religion. Maybe he will try to put fecal matters and urines on religious images this time? and why not fornication with animals this time? or with dead persons? Hey our freedom of expression is absolute, remember? 

so you approve of what Muslims do when they’re religious sensibilities are offended? hmm?

The U.S. is hardly a model I would want to follow in the areas you mentioned.  What their founding fathers advocated is freedom of religious belief and not freedom FROM religious belief. Instead, it’s turning authoritarian with all the ban, ban, ban. If you want no religion, why don’t you go to an authoritarian state like China or North Korea?

yes. we are arguing exactly about respecting the rights of others. hindi yung rights mo lng! what will you charge Miedo with btw? because afaik, he committed no crime. however, the couple who vandalized his work did. as did those who incited violence against Mideo and the CCP. so who here really violates the rights of others? earning respect is not a right, just to inform you. respect is a privilege. that’s why artists are free to lampoon political figures, create caricatures of them, make jokes about them. why is there not the same level of protest against jokes about Jesus? i bet you there have been sexual jokes about Jesus but nobody pays them any attention.

My name is Carl Jerickson Lopez and I will not hide behind the anonymity in the internet that breeds false bravado among some people here. But even if I am not catholic, that doesn’t necessarily mean that I am on a vendetta against Catholicism or the people who believe in it, I only question the credibility of those who run the church. This being said, I have approached this topic the way a sane man should, I listened to both my faith and my reason to come up with a balanced idea. I began this as someone neutral to the issue, but upon seeing how most fanatics disrespect differing opinions and how they resort to crude words to battle sound argument, I am standing by Mideo Cruz’s work. I am against the curtailing of artistic freedom by the self-serving purpose of a supposedly “majority” religious group in our country. They all scream about religious intolerance on the part of Mideo Cruz, but I’ll ask them, “how tolerant are you about other people’s faith?” If I speak out, would you tolerate my beliefs? Because believe me, I have tolerated your hypocrisy and excuses for most of my life.

I may or may not agree with Mideo Cruz’s theory, approach, or execution of the artwork in question, but NOTHING will ever justify the violation of his artwork. He may or may not have violated a very small section of an article on our Constitution, but that is for the courts to decide and not the dirty hands of self-righteous vigilantes. If that is going to be allowed then we may as well start hunting down and killing all corrupt politicos and crime lords that are known to us.

I, for one, believe that he did not violate anything because he never forced anyone to see his artwork. Mideo did not hi-jack a bus and held the Catholics at gun-point and make them go to the exhibit. His artwork did not make anyone become inspired to go out, buy a gun and shoot down Catholics. It may have been insensitive true, but it was also being brutally honest. The outrage of the catholic masses right now proves his point that the Filipino people do indeed have a tendency to be fanatical with regards to their devotions to icons and mere images. And they unwittingly participated in the exposure of the said idea to those who are indifferent to the schemes hatched between our government and the Catholic Church, as proven by the pressure inflicted upon CCP to shut down the exhibit.

I believe in the separation of State and Church. The State should protect its constituents from ideologies being forced upon them by a religious “majority”. The State’s morality should not be based on one religion but instead it should be an amalgamation of all faith and culture within the country. The State should not ask ONLY the Catholic Church about morals and indecency or what is right and what is wrong because if this happens, then woe to the Muslims. Or to the Baptists. Or to the Rizalistas.

I also firmly believe that nobody here can call themselves both Filipino and Catholic at the same time. The fact is that the Catholic Church almost single-handedly wiped-out our culture with their censorship and the imposition of their dogmas from the moment they landed on our shores. They branded the Filipino natives as Pagans and then proceeded to supplant the carved images of our Anitos with, guess what, carved images of their God and saints. How many traditions and tribal practices have we lost to this faith? How many were corrupted or re-fashioned to suit the priests’ purposes? Then they proceeded to give out promises of a reward AFTER death so that they can grab hold of every mortal possession the native’s had. And still we wonder why up to the present most Filipinos don’t own a single piece of land. They persecuted and excommunicated the man that became our NATIONAL HERO simply because he wrote literature that went against the Catholic Church. So tell me, aren’t they offended every time they see a statue of Jose Rizal? He was the embodiment of everything the Church preached against, so why not burn that?

The Catholic Church should no longer be given any credibility to mandate or impose any of its will upon the Filipino people. We have suffered long enough as it is. They say some artworks are a perversion, what about their own perversions? As hard as it may be to comprehend for some, Mideo was not insulting Jesus as a man, or desecrating a person. He was emphasizing on how the “image” of Jesus is being sold commercially to people, much like the other figures featured in his work for example Elvis or Mickey Mouse. The cross is not exclusive to the Catholic Church or Christians; you may want to ask the Celts or the Egyptians about that. The Penis is not exclusively perverse; you may want to ask your biology teacher about that too. Whatever he meant to imply with the artwork, be it a benevolent or malevolent effect on our culture, it was up to the viewer to decide. So to all high and mighty zealots out there, you may have enough faith but please grow a brain.

To those still fixated with the idea of the “what if it were your mother’s photo?” thing, I will call your bluff. Give me your e-mail and I will send you a photo of my mother and then you can proceed to do anything you want with it and I will guarantee you that I will not personally harm you or file a lawsuit against you. The only catch is that you have to exhibit your work in a public place and attach your REAL name to it. You see, my mother IS a catholic and she is one of the few reasons I still have some form of respect for the said church. I know for a fact that she will forgive you for your act, and she will even see some semblance of beauty in whatever you come up with. That is how strong her faith is. We are all temporary, and a few months from now (maybe even days) no one will remember who we are and all we have done will crumble to dust. But when we stand together in judgment before our maker, would you have the guts to say in front of Him and I that you lived your life better than Mideo did? Kudos to the real Catholics and Christians in this thread, I salute you all. I saw your posts and the most saddening is the fact that you are so few.

They say Mideo attacked the Catholic Church intentionally, well I say the Catholic Church intentionally focused on the Jesus thing and disregarded all the rest in order to make a scapegoat out of Mideo. They say that Mideo was picky in choosing which faith to attack and that if he had done so with the Muslims, they would have had his head immediately. Well for one Muslims won’t be affected by the exhibit at all given that they do not practice the idolatry of graven images, and to say outright that they would kill Mideo in an instant is akin to stereotyping them as a violent faith.

If I find any fault at all is Mideo’s lack of subtlety. He could have gone the way of the Eraserheads releasing the song “Para sa masa”. For those not in the know, that song was a hit and almost everyone can sing it at the time of its release but there lies a hidden stab at the public as being one that has less than cultivated taste. You see my take on that song was that Ely Buendia was saddened by the fact that the people only wanted them to churn out “masa” songs and discarded the rest of their more progressive ones. It is embodied by the words “Pinilit kong i-ahon ka, ngunit ayaw mo namang sumama.” The irony was everyone sang along to it. You see, progressive art and music is SUPPOSED to make you think! These artworks make the public think grow and find enrichment as a culture, but we all know that the priests would not want that. They profit too much from the backwards thinking behavior they have ingrained to their flock to ever want to part with such power or financial gain.

Respect begets respect. Mideo Cruz did not disrespect the Church and he did not dishonor the idols and images they hold so dear. He merely mimicked how most of the public, even the Catholics, have made a perversion of the idolizing or worshipping of mere images and how it has affected our society. The simple truth is that nowadays religion IS a commodity. Take a look outside most churches, for example Quiapo and Baclaran, and you will see countless images being sold on the streets. Isn’t that by itself a sacrilege? Did not Jesus himself condone these acts or practices of selling salvation or promises of such? But the fanatics definitely disrespected Mideo’s work with the sadistic vandalism of his work

I may or may not agree with Mideo Cruz’s idea, but I defend his right not to be censored. And if he ends up in jail while the clergy walk away scot-free from the sexual harassments and deals with corrupt politico’s scandal, we might as well all together walk into the jails and lock ourselves up because that is where we are all headed.

In parting, I suggest to you all that your “Jesus” himself is a symbolism of free expression and unbridled idea. He expressed his idea, his view of the world as it was during his time, and what did he gain for it? He suffered through the justice system of the State that he lived in. He was persecuted, mocked, and killed. Yet in the end he lived again and rose up to the heavens in a higher form of ideal. This is what will happen here. You may kill the man, but you will never kill the idea.

Oh, and I still reserve my “right” not to reply to ignorant comments.

yes! krimen ba to? may nakulong na ba sa dirty finger? karapatan nyang mamakyu. karapatan mo ring magpakyu back.

where is the “clear and present” danger here? as far as Mideo is concerned, sya ang nasa “clear and present danger” hindi ang publiko. the revised penal code is lower than the constitution. in conflicts, the constitution precedes any law. freedom of speech and of expression is above the religious sensibilities of prudes.

No, the US is the great model in this.  The basis for these bans are that since government agencies and public schools are parts of the government, if they condone or support religious practice on their premises they are de facto supporting a particular religion or group of religions.  And those who don’t belong to that religion then feel alienated by their own government.  I remember growing up feeling very uncomfortable when teachers would lead praying to the Virgin Mary when I was in public school in Manila, because I was a Protestant. 
     So the ban here is not against practicing religion, it is against government promoting a particular religion in a public school or in a government agency.
     Beside, one can argue all you want, but the US Supreme Court has already rendered ruled on these matters and our Supreme Court follows US precedents in law.  So if someone argues these cases, it pretty much is settled law. 

explain how the art is religious bigotry. please.

no. you are a bully when you have the numbers and you persecute the weak/the minority. if the catholic church was really a paragon of tolerance, they would DEFEND NOT ATTACK. there would be none of these barbaric acts of violence, vandalism, inciting violence to Mideo et al. if the Catholic Church was as god-fearing and as loving as Christ, they would FORBEAR, not ATTACK.

do it, if it so pleases you. then you show you are just no better than Mideo. perhaps even lower. as your intention is exactly to hurt someone else.

putting the faith on a piece of paper is not as it is offending but what  is abominable is that it uses the  libido against iconic christian images to explain what happens to our faith or how faithful we have been.    a true artist can convey his message in an uplifting piece.  i am not asking for a masterpiece yet , for mideo is still struggling to be a good artist according to my standard.  as i understand  from you, you see his ugly message through the ugliness in  his work but is it not more rewarding on your part to see the ugliness of his message through a beautiful creation?  ahhh beautiful work of art! but it bears some ugly truth  on our religiousit! you must have exclaimed if this is the case instead.
________________________________

may limitasyon, pero wala sa ginawa ni Mideo ang mga limitasyon na yon. magbasa ka nga ng  konstitusyon. ang limitasyon lamang ng freedom of expression eh kapag ito ay nagpo-pose ng danger sa publiko, eg. sedition or announcement making ppl panic. all rights have limitations. as long as it does not impede on the rights of others, ok lng. pero halimbawa, your right to express yourself impedes on the rights of others, mali na ito. halimbawa, malaya kang i-express ang sarili mo. pero kung gagamitin mo ang kalayaang ito para manghikayat ng ibang tao para gumawa ng masama, your right to freedom of expression is forfeit. freedom of expression does not cover: hate speech and incitement to commit a crime. by this definition, i think it’s the religious nuts here who commit a crime when they incite violence or incite others to commit a crime against Mideo.

John Stuart Mill argued that “…there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered.” Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

then let God judge that person. live and let live. let God be the judge. not you. since God is the offended party, he alone can pass judgement.

O de lumabas din ang katotohanan. Ayaw mo lang sa Catholic Church. This is just anti-Catholic bigotry. Art art pa kuno.

i just cannot simply understand how you constructed your message. sometimes you are writing to me and sometimes to others.  Please be organize in your thoughts. If you are against the hierarchy of the catholic church address it to them not to me.  And i dislike being branded as a hypoccryte.  I am not.  What is not acceptable to me is the way he expresses his dislikes of the ills that happened and still happening in the catholic church and its followers.    And by the way i have commented against charging mideo to court, i termed it as over reaction and an infringement of his right to self expression but i still maintain that his work is vulgar and could not be considered art.
________________________________

you failed on number 2. love your neighbor. go back to number 2.

you should know better huh? because you know “real art.”

Reading the comments below, I know that those who like reading Pangalangan are smart and reasonable people. 

. . . the mothers of Jek and reddfrog would be real people and to do that to them may constitute unjust vexation and may be fined one peso.

to do the same on imaginary entities would fall under freedom of expression in the same breath as putting wooden penises and spent condoms on photos or images of  other imaginary beings like Batman, Thor, Zeus , The Green Lantern and the other comics characters and all  the many and  different gods being claimed by their fanatics of past and present times to be the one and only true god since their reality only  exists in comic books and religious books and has and can never present scientific and rational evidence of their actual existence and thus remain a figment of ones’ fairytale imagination like the one featured in Mideo’s art.

to claim offense for an imaginary and unreal being would be construed as delusional by a thinking rational mind.

I’m sorry if it seems disjointed to you.Some of the thoughts here are directed at the clergy and some are directed at the hypocrites. But the good and decent values that can be found in Catholicism/Christianity is something that I respect. I know that you yourself know where you stand. Thanks for your thoughts.

the display of it offends them, idiot. the veneration of these idols offend them.

I forgive you. You have clearly validated my point.

And since the CCP is a government agency, the government is then promoting Medeo’s anti-religious secular beliefs? But then, that’s the point about the U.S. ban. In banning religion, it practices partiality in favor of secular atheism.

And since the CCP is a government agency, the government is then
promoting Medeo’s anti-religious secular beliefs? But then, that’s the
point about the U.S. ban. In banning religion, it practices partiality
in favor of secular atheism.

It is alright. everything that begins well finishes well.

at pinakita mo na rin kung anong uri ka ng kristyano para mang alipusta.

if religion was banned, you think anyone would be able to practice it? so is it banned or not?

dapata nito i-reprint sa PDI as a reader comment. ganda! mahiya sana ang mga pari!

Sorry, this is mis-posted. This is in michaelNY’s thread.

it doesn’t matter if it is misposted or not. answer the question. did the US ban religion or not?

and you are free to maintain that opinion. however, please do respect others who don’t see your point of view.

thanks Jao. I do hope it could help open a peaceful, moderate and logical discussion among those of differing opinions, but with all the hate-mongers here, good luck to that thought.

i classify that under “gay sex”

nakakatawa ngang isipin na kung sino pa ang nagke claim na maka dyos eh sya pang unang gumagawa ng mga gawaing maka demonyo. love not hate, sabi ni Hesus. never has Jesus advocated violence. but these “believers of Jesus” will not only advocate violence, they will personally do it themselves. amazing Christians, i say.

The Supreme Court actually has strict definitions on whether a certain government action (or law) violates separation of Church and State.  It’s called the “Lemon Test” as defined in the case of “Lemon vs. Kurtzman” in 1971.  The test says that a government action is unconstitutionsl if any one of the following is violated:

The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

So in the CCP case, the only prong of the test that can be argued is the second, whether the action has a PRIMARY effects of inhibiting religion.  But since it is an art show with the aim of showcasing Philippine art and the art piece has the primary aim of discussing aspects of Philippine culture, any effect on inhibiting religion is only secondary. So the CCPs actions do not violate any aspect of the Lemon Test and would be considered constitutional. Or this can all be argued in the Supreme Court. Which is what I am advocating – let’s just bring these cases to the Supreme Court to finally settle these separation of Church and State issues.

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

Most of the time, I pity them. It is innate for a human being to turn out good as well as bad. I pity them because they were misled and I hope it doesn’t stop there, we must do our best to educate them and not resort to becoming like them.

To many, Jesus is considered a real person who also had a mother. Desecrating an object that is dear to a person creates the same real impact as that of a real mother. To disregard such impact on others is as delusionary and as cold hearted as a reptile who is not equipped with a rational mind.

“The outrage of the catholic masses right now proves his point that the
Filipino people do indeed have a tendency to be fanatical with regards
to their devotions to icons and mere images.”

-How did you get the idea that this is mere fanaticism when, as is obvious, you do not understand this point of Catholic practice? The practice bothers you? Well, what Medeo did bothers Catholics. You yourself have acknowledged that what Medeo did was insensitive. That would have been fine and within the bounds of what the article was about. But then you went on to turn this into a tirade against Catholics and Catholicism in general. Tell me, was Pangalangan’s article a rant about Catholicism or about the legalities attending Medeo’s work?

“I also firmly believe that nobody here can call themselves both Filipino
and Catholic at the same time. The fact is that the Catholic Church
almost single-handedly wiped-out our culture with their censorship and
the imposition of their dogmas from the moment they landed on our
shores. They branded the Filipino natives as Pagans and then proceeded
to supplant the carved images of our Anitos with, guess what, carved
images of their God and saints. How many traditions and tribal practices
have we lost to this faith? How many were corrupted or re-fashioned to
suit the priests’ purposes? Then they proceeded to give out promises of a
reward AFTER death so that they can grab hold of every mortal
possession the native’s had. And still we wonder why up to the present
most Filipinos don’t own a single piece of land. They persecuted and
excommunicated the man that became our NATIONAL HERO simply because he
wrote literature that went against the Catholic Church. So tell me,
aren’t they offended every time they see a statue of Jose Rizal? He was
the embodiment of everything the Church preached against, so why not
burn that?”

-I suggest you read Nick Joaquin’s “Culture And History” for a different take on that. You have obviously been brainwashed in the best anti-Catholic propaganda. From the practices of sinners within the Church (and there will be those) you are not justified in condemning Catholics and Catholicism wholesale. That would be foul and quite uncalled for.

Thanks. You gave helpful information.

A great passionate defense – you should try to send this in as a column to PDI or other news outlets. I agree with Rhyan – just beautiful.

To hide behind a label simply as “not catholic” still has a ring of cowardice and deception and reveals your real agenda which is to attack the beliefs of others. To ride on the Mideo brouhaha on the guise of defending his constitutional freedom of expression in order to attack the religion you love to hate just shows how many forked tongues one can use. Mideo created an art form that was designed to cause revulsion among the people living in this country irrespective of religion. (yes, even protestants and born-agains sued the CCP and Mideo together). Mideo and his ilk got what they wanted and more. And Mideo knew that before hand. While emotions flared around (remember this was the object of the art), the real threat to Mideo and the organizers are not the angry protestations and remarks thrown by revulsed people – it is the legal suit filed by complainants on the assertion that certain laws were violated by the exhibition of the desecrated images. If you are really for freedom of expression as you so eloquently discoursed, you should lend your talent to Mideo’s defence in a legal argument- instead of perorating your hatred against Catholicism in this thread. After all, attacking Catholicism is also a form of religion by its own construction.

Finally an organized reply. Thanks.

“How did you get the idea that this is mere fanaticism when, as is obvious, you do not understand this point of Catholic practice? The practice bothers you? Well, what Medeo did bothers Catholics. You yourself have acknowledged that what Medeo did was insensitive. That would have been fine and within the bounds of what the article was about. But then you went on to turn this into a tirade against Catholics and Catholicism in general. Tell me, was Pangalangan’s article a rant about Catholicism or about the legalities attending Medeo’s work?”

- Please do not judge me so quickly, as you may be judged quickly by God as well. I USED to be catholic, and the hypocrisy of some people within it is what bothered me. But me being bothered does not equate to me showing up at our church to gun down the devotees. What I wanted was to be able to practice my faith and make do without all that pomp and parade and rituals and sacraments and traditions that inhibit the actual application of God’s teachings. And I did not attack Catholics and Catholicism “in general”, you might have overlooked it but I did send out my love to those Catholics and Christians who have demonstrated a truly Christ-like (as stated in the Bible, New Testament) etiquette on the thread. It is indeed relevant to the article because it touched upon the separation of the Church and the State. Of course I will cite things against the Church to point out how it is never in a position to mandate. I was only pouring my grievances on the hypocritical clergy and fanatics. If you feel slighted by my piece, then I can ascertain a guess as to which one you are unless, of course, you prove me wrong. And if I am wrong, I will not hesitate to ask for your forgiveness.

“I suggest you read Nick Joaquin’s “Culture And History” for a different take on that. You have obviously been brainwashed in the best anti-Catholic propaganda. From the practices of sinners within the Church (and there will be those) you are not justified in condemning Catholics and Catholicism wholesale. That would be foul and quite uncalled for.”

- This is quoted from Wikipedia “After being honored as National Artist, Joaquin used his position to work for intellectual freedom in society. He secured the release of imprisoned writer José F. Lacaba. At a ceremony on Mount Makiling attended by First Lady Imelda Marcos, Joaquín delivered an invocation to Mariang Makiling, the mountain’s mythical maiden. Joaquín touched on the importance of freedom and the artist. After that, Joaquín was excluded by the Marcos regime as a speaker from important cultural events.”

-Brainwashed? I am not as easily deceived as you may perceive. I have read the book, but that does not mean I have to live my life and base my thoughts ONLY on one book. I have read both sides of the argument and honestly, I am striving to find a compromise that can be reached. What I AM ranting against is the seeming hesitance of the clergy in addressing issues relevant to the changes in our society and culture. Like I said a thousand times before, I am not condemning wholesale, I am only challenging the hypocrites to cast the first stone. In the end that is your opinion and I will respect you for that.

Thanks for your thoughts.

That’s some nicely worded wall of bare assertion and accusations Nuntiandi. Proof comes before the conclusion though.

Well said.

Onli in da Pilipins.

This sir, needs to be shared over Facebook. You should get to it~ :D

Perhaps you might have misread my post. I still live by the good lessons that I learned from Catholicism. That and the good lessons I have learned from Buddhism, and Islam, and various other religions.I am calling on the hypocrites without sin to cast the first stone, that is all. 
How, pray tell, did I attack “Catholicism” as an idea? Even if some parts of it is restructured, the idea would still remain. I am only questioning the credibility of people who have corrupted the idea for personal gain like empowerment or financial gain or accolades. 
I wish we could say that it was really indeed JUST the protests and remarks, but the arson committed was material proof of what I am trying to say. Until the clergy opens up their walls to a REAL dialogue, we all know this will never end. 

But that is your opinion and you are welcome to live by it. Thanks for your thoughts.

Pwedeng i post ko tong reply an to sa facebook! You hit it right!

“the hypocrisy of some people within it is what bothered me”

I feel for you, bro, because that bothers me too. I feel sad most when I see that hypocrisy wearing clerical shoes. But the thing is, it is a matter of faith, and I stay on as a Catholic. I do not know if you understand it if I put it that way– that it is a matter of faith — because some people tend to look down on faith as something for the blind. It is not. It is of a person’s innermost conviction. And when you are convinced of the truth of something, you hold on to that no matter if you see people around you who hold the same truth but act contrary to their convictions. Thank you for your honesty.

right on bro!

my take on it… mideo cruz merely showed a juxtaposition of the sacred and profane.. two entities that are very much intertwined in the Filipino society… only that he did it in a more abstract and exaggerated manner. his art mirrors the syncretism by which Filipinos use the sacred and the vulgar. in a typical household, you have FHM mags in living rooms where there are also crucifixes and bibles… where you have posters of nude women beside images and icons.. where you have priests and pastors involved in scandals.. where you have the same crucifixes in their cars but do not obey traffic rules.. where they say prayers and rosaries but curse.. even cursing using ‘sus ginoo’.. where you have Christians who post death threats.. and where they use the same hand to hold the rosary with the same hand they use to masturbate.. his art simply mirrors the reality that within our discrete private spaces we discretely overlap the sacred and profane.. just as with the Christ with a condom.

So this is the kind of exchange we need more of – honest disagreements that are discussed without resorting to name-calling, rancor, insults, etc.  While I may not agree with you, I thank you (and jek lopez) for at this stage at least elevating the tone of the discussions (including your last reply to my earlier post), and at least looking to find common ground.

if you feel that the exhibit is offensive, then don’t go to the gallery! if you want to see the artwork, then go to the gallery! it’s not like you have no choice but to consume everything that’s laid out in front of you. personally, i did not like cruz’s artwork, but that doesn’t give me the right to deface it. 

Just a stiff, I don’t see a problem in promoting whatever ideas of Medeo wants to express, just as I don’t have a problem when any other artist wants to express his idea using the facilities of CCP. That’s the nature of freedom of expression.

“I like Christianity, I don’t like Christians”  —M.K. Gandhi

Forgive me if i was starting to associate you with the hypocrites, that is what happens when people here answer with rabid answers without explaining the root of their rage. But since you have explained your stand ever so clearly now, I really ask for your forgiveness.

That was exactly the point! I was merely pointing out how the hypocrites are just humans themselves and therefore prone to err so that means they are in no position to dictate upon the State about what is right and what is wrong.

Kudos to you for believing in your faith! We men must find our own paths to salvation and I will not deny you your truth. But please do all you can to help those of your brethren who are indeed blinded by faith and tell them that not all who stand at the other side of the wall are enemies.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Yes, it’s alright with me if you do. Thanks

you say peace and order. who’s causing all this ruckus now? mideo simply exhibited his work. he was not doing anything to incite anybody to do what he did.

what common good are you referring to? the catholic beliefs? freedom of expression? i would uphold freedom of expression as good for everyone but not catholic beliefs. not all filipinos are catholics.

your analogy of a big truck to that of mideo’s work is flawed. driving recklessly is against traffic laws. the driver who caused someone else’s death should be jailed. mideo’s work did not violate any law, only some people’s sensibilities.

what US ban on religion. you can practice your faith in the US. the US constitution does not favor atheism or any other religion over another.

so it offends them idiot. do they have the right to stop it idiot?

I already did. Feel free to share if you like. Thanks.

please use clarity on you comment? I dont know what is your point just go straight to the point so I can understand you better. 

I admire you for being highly intelligent and articulate. But obviously, you don`t remember what happened when the Prophet Muhammad was caricaturized with an explosive stuck on his religious headgarb. And you might have forgotten also that Salman Rushdie is still under threat from the Iranian clerics for writing the book “The Satanic Verses“.

this is not about religion, it is all about respect for people. so, no matter how the intellectuals here write to impress more the confused readers  with their bloody stellar display of  repertoire of parlance than to assuage their resentment and shock with the bastardizing of their core beliefs which transcends beyond their physical existence. nobody can bastardize my daughter, mom or wife, much less display it in public or broadcast in the net and whether or not i want to look at it or not. that is foul and cognizable by the courts of law because i love, i revere and respect my inner family circle and to God, that is undiminished. He is the reason for my existence and all creation, that is it, that has simply got to be respected. it may not be a cause of action to sue and but  you say it is anybody’s right to disrespect, then, subject your loved one, your daughter to such indignity and post it in you tube. you dont wanna look into it, it is your right but many will feast on it. that is respect for people by not bastardizing what they truly love and revere.

I DON’T KNOW WHY, BUT EVERYTIME I HAPPEN TO READ (I DON’T USUALLY READ HIM) RAUL PANGALANGAN IT SEEMS LIKE HE’S ALWAYS OUT TO IMPRESS HIS READERS WITH LEGAL POMP AND PAGEANTRY. HE’S NO DIFFERENT FROM DORONILLA WHO’S BETTER OFF TEACHING THAN WRITING COLUMNS. THEY CAN’T COMMUNICATE. THESE GUYS ARE SO GAY.

hello nakakalimutan natin ccp yun at binaliktad kaya media ang storya dun gaya na lang nung unang lumabas sa tv yun sabi ni pinky web artist tralalalala RH BILL. connect nung art na yun sa RH BILL, saka learning experience po iyon bilang isang estudyante hindi ako mag rereact ng harshly kagad. Sapuso naman natin pagiging makadiyos ang lumalabas yung mga naggalit sila tong lumalabas na bastos at walang ka amor amor sa kanilang paniniwala sa diyos. parang ganito yan binastos ung papel na sinasamba ko. aguuuyyy! tara magwelga tayo mga kapwa ko tao. ganon yun naoobserbahan ko eh. Bilang estudyante dapat lumugar tayo sa posisyon na kinalalagyan ng exhibit. CCP for learning purposes, CHURCH to cater needs of your less faith.

napaka-absolute naman ng sinabi nyo po na “nobody can bastardize my daughter, mom or wife, much less display it in public or broadcast in the net and whether or not i want to look at it or not. ” Parang sinasabi mo po na hindi kabilang sa anak si mideo ni God. 

@PaulineGaerlan..there no need for us to go the gallery to get offended… we can see it everywhere…you don’t like Medio Cruz works  but you just not do anything about it because it doesn’t involved on your beliefs…you are not Catholic… so why bother…right..so don’t teach us how to absorbed some garbage works because you know nothing how we feel…

So let God and jesus file a protest against Mideo.

We know how you feel, and we understand that you are well within your rights to be offended, and to voice your opinion. However, having that something should be censored because it offends you is a weak premise. Would you be fine if I, as a non-Catholic, would want your churches censored because I find your faith annoying?

I’ve been following the US’ activity. While they do promote the freedom of religious practice, what their secular community has been pushing for – and I very much support – is keeping religious practice out of government offices and public schools. In practice, this means replacing moments of prayer for more neutral moments of silence, or calling out any politician that publicly declares their biased support for any specific faith. I don’t see any of these so-called “bans” you are rambling about.

@antonio Pe yang…I don’t understand why you feel annoyed with our Faith…and you want to censord our church…can you elaborate please???

i share the same impression and my first reaction/post was,he’s so vain !

exactly bro…brutes and irrationals don’t know How to get real….

how about intellectual property abuse,or patented ownership usurpation  much worst vandalism on others possesion ????

we don’t proselytize,mind you !   and since when ,the phrase to be offended become a rights! you’re mumbling words without comprehension !

you sounded like the arroyos….tsk  tsk tsk…SC got their mandates from the people(gov’t),will you !

are you dreaming ! get real or read more !

Owwws ! Really ! smart my AAAA

another lost soul !!!!

another lost soul and counting

let’s see Nuntiandi if their hearts are as hard as the Pharaoh…..

you need to be excorcised…there’s a lot of conflicting evils within your soul….and don’t be greedy to accomodate all !

you don’t have an iota of privilege to cite our Christian Teachings…go away Satan

How old are you,boy ?

Satan can also be meek !

It is not for you,,,mine and mine alone,get it !

I hate reading multifaceted lies !

waste of time…click !

excuse me, i wasn’t telling you to go to the gallery to “get offended”. i simply said go to the gallery to see the artwork. take it in, see how the art changes you. i do not see the exhibit everywhere. i only see PHOTOS of cruz’s work, and it’s not even his whole artwork that’s seen in the photos. i only see snippets of it. moreover, Politeismo is only a part of Kulô. there are other artists and other artworks involved.

and EXCUSE ME, i AM catholic. i’ve just resolved to not go to church and hear mass because the philippine catholic church is interfering with my relationship with God. i don’t know how you feel because i know that i have a choice, and for me, the choice i made makes sense. do not dare dictate how i should go about my faith.

ever heard of “to each, his own”?

p.s. fix your english, please.

why are we in a country filled with backward-thinkers? i thought we wanted progress.

i can shoulder your one way ticket to India…go…go quickly !

get out on my personal Jesus..will you?please !

i think he didn’t get that you were giving an example/a “what-if”.

what’s wrong with being gay?

uhh.. what about it? i don’t get your comment. please clarify.

maybe we can suggest to Pinoy that a special Funds,allocated for these brutes irrationals.. in their sojourn to these places you mentioned. I don’t mind handing a few pesos

do some reading on that subjects.and apply some logic how it relates to the issue…..

i know how they relate to the issue, in a sense that the artworks have been defaced and the artists do not deserve that. i do suggest that you read on the philosophy of ethics too.

the clarification i’m asking for is due to the fact that you only listed topics without discussing them. that’s what causes most misunderstandings.

hello Antonio, peace be with you. alam mo naman bro, the only thing certain in life is change and death. People have their own reckoning  time to know who God is and in most cases, this comes on trying times when no force on this Earth in which we live can alleviate their predicament or ease their pains. i think you are someone so lucky you havent experienced needing the help of Somebody up there. Atheists or those who dont believe in God, i tell you, when they arrive into their recall time by the Creator and are gasping for their last breath, they will call on Someone so Powerful to spare them from their sufferings. that Someone is God. I pray that you will have a reckoning time before your recall

So you are Catholic… but I don’t know how deep Catholic you are…but it doesn’t matter… to each his own…you don’t care even somebody had maligned Jesus image which our lord…you don’t go to the church because catholic church interfered your relationship with god but still you are still claiming that you are catholic… how ironic..nobody dare to dictate you how to practice your faith…if you don’t like how we do it then just ignore it anyway you don’t care…catholic church never interfered how we do our prayer to god it is just a guidance to us, if you don’t like never mind…no body force you to do something against your well…that’s CATHOLIC CHURCH…

But i just don’t understand why you don’t feel anything when you KNOW about Medio Cruz work…if you are still CATHOLIC…just wondering.. but it’s not my right to interfer others right…

i couldn’t understand half the things you said, but i’ll try. 

i did say that i didn’t like the artwork. is that not feeling anything? i didn’t like the artwork because i think it was a sorry attempt to say that the philippine catholic church is lambasting the real essence of being catholic, but since it’s the expression of the artist, i respect the artist for that. and i already said why i don’t go to mass. yes, i claim that i’m catholic because I AM. i just dislike the ways of the philippine catholic church. is it wrong to say a prayer outside of church? i make my personal choices based on what i know and what i read. i did not form my beliefs based on the beliefs of the people around me. if i did that, i would have been conservative, anti-RH bill, and i would have condemned Mideo Cruz (Mideo, not Medio) without having real reasons except “i’m just following orders”. kadiri. i do find it disappointing that so many filipinos have that kind of upbringing.

so ibig sabihin kung ako pala ay mukhang condom at tumabi ako sa isang religious statue, im already disrespecting someone’s faith? ang babaw naman nun. re-think.

I think Ozamis7 is too narrow-minded and not educated well enough to communicate in a comprehensible level. I suggest you stop reading other people’s comments here because your inability to understand and your arrogance to respond to other people with your poor quality English created more agitation in this forum.

I would also suggest that you open your mind to other people’s faiths and perspectives. I don’t go to church (just like PaulineGaerlan) because, for me, listening to hypocrites in the likes of Archbishop Oscar Cruz does not make me a better person. 
But my choice to not go to church does not make me a bad person either. What makes me bad is if I don’t fulfill my responsibility of learning to understand and write in English and creating turmoil by letting everyone know that I suck at communicating. I hope you have sensed my sarcasm Ozamis7. Go back to school before you would even dare write down senseless comments.

In fact I do remember those incidences that you speak of, I even have a copy and have read his book. What I was pertaining to, since we are in the Philippines, were our Muslim brothers here and the way some comments automatically paint them as one of violent faith. While there are indeed terrorists who are of Islam faith, I know for a fact that there are more than a lot of them that would prefer peace over war. This same thing can be said of the Catholics and other religions as well. We all must find the goodness in them in order to attain tolerance. Thanks for your thoughts.

anata wa honto ni baka desu.

bro,let them live a life in a living hades……

one way of determining the truth is trough Deductive reasoning,right? and this argumenent will start on Who owned the Christ the King icon and if is proven that it does not belong to Medyobuang Cruz then,artist(kuno) has no rights to vandalize,desecrate or maligned,intellectual property/patent law will apply to his violation.Moreover,constitutionaly it is wrong to inflict damage to property which it does not belong to you.Are we getting nearer to the truth now….?

let go her soul,Amigo..

who did the harming first..who provoked ?

thanks..you made me smile.

yehey,Jek Lopez had found the truth….Welcome home,prodigal son !

and for them to be a member of CPC,i don’t mind ….Pls,don’t confuse with CCP,

You ruled out the human instinct that when his/her peace has been violated or provoked will fight for self presevation.You forgot that human power,even in the cloak of arts is limited.Any combat(opinions) are mostly won by sheer numbers,Just thinked on why do we have election of leaders.

Jao Romero@ now,you’re showing you immaturity !

Bro I think she is not her… maybe him her…whatever…

kaya seguro nila gusto ang birth control para i apply sa ating mga Catholics….Huli sila ngayon !

argumentum ad hominem

You’re welcome.

May mga tao talagang close-minded. Hindi talaga kayo magkaka-intindihan dahil wala kayong common ground. Iba ang pagkakaintindi niya sa pagiging Catholic sa pagkakaintindi mo ng pagiging Catholic.

argumentum ad hominem

Obviously, you aren’t. Nice reply btw. “Owwwws !” Nice emphasis on the “W”

First of all, I’m sorry that my english  is not good as you are. but i try my best to be more clearer to you.
You are right.. nothing wrong to pray outside the church. So you are still praying and I’m sure you pray to lord Jesus Christ whenever you are…you only pray to Jesus Christ.
Then suddenly, here’s come Medio Cruz in his major major obra maistra…deflecting the image of our lord Jesus Christ..you don’t feel offended?? You even respect the artist of what he done to our Lord..what a catholic faith you have…
And who is giving orders here…and who is following order…my english are very simple if you don’t
understand…Guidance are totally different from Order..KADIRI ka jan…gustong gusto mo naman yong gawa ni MEdio Cruz…dahil parihas yong takbo ng utak nyo…

PS. huwag mong gamitin ang RH bill dito dahil hindi ito tungkol sa RH bill and for your information Pro RH din ako…

Another ignorant comment!

How idiotic. Kaya maraming naninira sating mga Kristiyano dahil sa’yo eh. Go away, human!

HIndi naman disrespect yun sa faith ng iba. Disrespect nila yun sa yo.

I think it’s more like “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Greggy..Thanks for your advice..I’ll take note on that…and you’ve got my respect…

Medyo tama ka. Sinasabi lang ng column na ito na

“Ayaw ko sa sinasabi mo. Pero inaatake ka nila dahil sa sinabi mo. Ipagtatanggol ko ang karapatang mong magsalita kasi nasa Konstitusyon iyon.”

Parang ganyan.

As PJ O’Rourke said, There is only one basic human right- the right to do what you d_mn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty:- the duty to take the consequences. So with this, let us go on with our thing.

well said! dahil dyan, mas marami nang makaka-intindi. simple na yung analogy eh :D

O anong nangyari sa guidance ng Catholicism? Diba kahit si Jesus Christ mismo, pinatigil niya yung pambabato diba?

John 8:1-11
1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.   2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.   But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.   9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”   11 “No one, sir,” she said.   “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

kaya di pwede yang rason mo na “Human Instinct”

nice point there.

Kung tatabi ka dun sa statue ng isang buwan o mahigit pa, dun ka matutulog, doon ka kakain, maliligo, jiingle, tatae etc., oo disrectpectful yon. Yung logic mo ha, nahulog yata. Pakipulot at punasang mabuti.

Is it not clear ! peace and order in a society ! Wow ! you go on with this argument without knowing ! bro,….check, CAUSE and EFFECT !

or apply science to your art…..The Law of Motion !

ito lang ang hindi pa kuha ng mga pro Medio…yong art(kuno) nya pag ina applyan na ng Science(reality) from the masses,ewan ko lang kung macontrol ang explosion !

kanina ..magkasangga kayo !…english kasi kayo ng english,haton hindi nagkaintindihan..LoL

freedom is limitless If it is within the bounds of the law???????????????????????????????????????

that’s the Real Thing,baby ! survival of the fittest ! and the natural law of motion ! Human instinct of many ,aroused from harms inflicted by the few !

it will be excited …when the Miranda Warning will be read to Medyobuang Cruz et al……You have the right to remain silent…LoL.

Bay… ako rin nagulohan sa mga ito….magaling mag english… ngayon tagalog na nagmurahan na…pero marami ding magandang labo labo matutunan natin sa kanila…

you too,want to avail a ticket ?

well, Sugbu’s all previous comments can be viewed,right ? take a peek !.

You didn’t mention that “other thing” that impresses the readers though. That is, making sense. Making sense by stating facts is annoying of course, if you’re in the opposite side of the coin.

It’s understandable though, that if you can’t state facts, you ridicule the one who can. It’s Filipino culture. Y’know, it’s crab mentality. And a Filipino must promote Filipino culture.

my apology….thanks.

What is art? See and analyze both sides of the story. One factor that contributes a lot to this issue is that Philippines is dominated by people who believe in the same faith.

you’re so right, Lily, this guy Pangalangan likes to impress just because he studied in Harvard, does everything he can to mimic Americans…amerkanong hilaw pa effect…gay talaga ito, kaya may bigote…para itago…

“backward thinkers” does not need a hyphen because it’s not a compound word, “backward” is the adjective modifying the simple word “thinkers”, Ozamis has to fix his English but you need to fix yours, too…and how can you be Catholic if you believe the Catholic Church is interfering with your relationship to God.?..you’re no longer Catholic but you don’t have the guts to get out…Pauline, if you’re serious about seeking the truth, read more and study more about your Catholic faith and you will find your parents left you a heritage , a pearl of great price if only you’ll have the sense to separate the wheat from the f weeds…try reading Truth of Catholicism by George Weigel…or anything by G.K. Chesterton or C.S.Lewis…

Ms. Bugan, your comment has no place in this thread. It is neither here nor there, and it reeks of downright prejudice. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about Atty. Pangalangan’s article, perhaps you are better off not reading his columns altogether.

On topic, I would like to commend Atty. Pangalangan on a well-reasoned and enlightening exposition on the issue of Mideo Cruz’s “Poleteismo.”

Gandhi would have found a true Christian in Mother Theresa of Calcutta or in John Paul II or in Maximillan Kolbe or Edith Stein who died in Auschwitz…that’s why the Catholic Church honors saints, to show to the world that true Christianity is possible…the rest of us the world calls hypocrites are simply weak and sinful creatures struggling to aspire to be true Christians but keep failing…but keep trying to rise again…As Catholic apologists like to say “The Church is not a museum for saints, but a hospital for sinners.”  Calling a sinful Catholic a “hypocrite” simply because his deeds do not match his words or the teachings of the Church is Satan’s most potent weapon to discourage Christians because we may be lured to believe that to sin is to be a hypocrite…if to sin is to be a hypocrite then there’s no salvation, then we’re all lost because we are all sinners…anbd that’s what Satan wants us to think because he hates humanity and wants us all to fail…when a nun or a priest fall into sin, the world calls them hypocrites and the world then concludes that nonody should be a priest or a nun because nuns and priests do not live up to their vows…but nuns and priests are humans vulnerablke to sin like all of us but trying to aspire for sanctityt…if when they sin or make mistakes we call that hypocrisy that will discourage anybody fromevery triying to be good…it’s the same thing with the Church…the world says you have committed grave sins, you haven’t lived up 100% to Christ’s teachings…you are all hypocrites, the Catholic Church mostb of all…now we are not hypocrites, we are simply weak and sinful human beings who try and fail but try and try again despite Stan;s call for us sinners to stop trying because we aree “hypocrites”…we sin but we keep trying because our salvation is not in our holiness but it is in our sins and weaknesse which we offer to God that God is able to show that HE is the source of goodness and holiness that it is GOD who makes saints out out of sinful creatures…our sins and weaknesses are our strength because they prove that it is GOD not sinful man who alone saves and sanctifies the world…that’s why the Roman Catholic Church for over 2000 years still survives with 1.2 billion members with a Pope universally recognized as the world’s foremost moral leader–despite all the sins and errors of its human members including a number of Popes, despite the Inquisition, the Crusades, the clergy scandals and pedophilia…that’s why a Jewish businessman who wanted to convert to Catholcism continued to convert to Catholicism despite the corruption he swa in Rome during the time of the Borgia Popes and he said to the bishop whom he wanted to baptize him, “I now know Catholcism is the true Chuch because as a businessman I know that if your Church is a purely human enterprise with all the corruption going
your organization would not last for one generation.” That was in the 1500s and the Church is still strong and producing saints like Mother Theresa to this day and the thousands of nuns and priets wo labot quietly and anonymity i HIV-AIDS hospitals in Africa, in leper colonies and orphanages in Asia, in the slums of India and the Philippines…which organization in the world today, if an empirical study is conducted, can match the depth and width, the height and expanse, the length and reach , the intensity and vitality of the love for individuals and humanity demonstrated by Catholics day in and day out all over the world from the rising of the sun in the east to its setting in the west? you think you love humanity more than Catholics? have you washed the body of a leper even once, something which Catholic nuns do everyday? have you ever lived even one day in a slum to take care of the sick and dying like Mother Thesea and her nuns did in Calcuttal and the other slums of the world? have you taken care of an HIV-AIDS victim in Africa the way Catholic nuns do in Africa? those people who bash the Church for being anit-gay, have you taken care of a dying HIVAIds gay patient in Africa the way Catholic nuns do? who loves gays more, you think?

elitist and ivory tower is right…harvard daw kasi…

but Cruz did that as a representation of how we’re destroying the real essence of being catholic. anonymous people barged into the Kulo exhibit to tear down Cruz’s artwork. is that not inflicting damage to property which does not belong to you?

so dahil sa tingin ng mga tao, mali yung ginawa ni Mideo Cruz, dapat mali din ang gawin sa kanya? babalik ba tayo sa “an eye for an eye” na mindset?

thinkers is not a “simple word”. ever heard of a noun?

like i said the PHILIPPINE catholic church is interfering with my relationship with God. i go to church in other countries and i don’t hear bullshit from them. why don’t you try doing that as well?

wow, are you really going to go THIS low? thank you!

oo. siguro nga pareho yung takbo ng utak namin. parehong BUKAS ang utak namin at may sense of rationality. and again, RH was an example.

so true! the schools here in the philippines are very much attached to religion. some schools have their non-catholic students sign a contract to not talk about their religion when conversing with their classmates. i also remember that my muslim classmates were told to step out of the classroom whenever we were going to pray the rosary.

ano kamo? nosebleed.

Pauline is what we call a nominal catholic.

kasi mas malaki ang pag-iinitindi nya kesa sa katulad nyong makikitid ang utak. di nyo ba nakikita na sa pag-aatake nyo ki Mideo, ginagawa nyo ang mga bagay na sinabi ni Hesus na wag gawin sa kapwa natin? Sabi ni Hesus, mahalin mo ang kaaway mo. Patawarin mo ang mga nagkamali sayo. Suklian mo ng kabutihan ang mga gumawa sayo ng mali.

Pero kayong mga buang, anong ginagawa nyo? Mata sa mata, galit sa galit. Walang puwang para sa pag-iintindi. May puwang lamang para sa opresyon ng mga opinyong di tugma sainyo.

Pauline, wag mo nang pag-aksayahan ng panahon ang ganitong klaseng mga tao. walang modo, panay na alam gawin eh pangungutya at pag-atake sa ibang tao. ad hominem attacks. walang reasoning sa pagdebate. trolling.

ikaw yata.

marunong ka naman mag-tagalog eh, nabasa ko. kaya mag tagalog ka na lng. para kumonti ang gulo. di nagkakaintindihan eh. trying hard ka kasi sa english.

kayo ang gustong mang censor di ba?

un lng ba masasabi mo? me masasabi ka bang eksplinasyon para sa posisyon mo? o panay pangangantyaw lng ba gagawin mo?

any mods, pls moderate this troll. trolling behavior should not be tolerated in PDI.

naintindihan mo ba yung sinulat ko?

another troll with an anonymous handle

another trollish post and counting

you need to be lobotomized. there’s a lot of conflicting stupidities within your brain… don’t be proud of them all!

oo, dahil ang laking perwisyo pag maraming tao at makikitid ang utak.

hahahaha napansin ko nga eh! i’m going through all 500+ comments just to know what other people think. made me see who the trolls are! they (as in, the same 3 or so people) really make an effort to condemn the commenters with “satanic” views!

love isn’t confined to only one religion. everyone can love. the acts of kindness you wrote about is done not only be catholics, or nuns and priests. incidentally, you would be surprised to know that the “amazing christians” you are so proud of, those who do charitable deeds, would not display the acts of hatred shown by other “loving” Catholics. you think Mother Teresa would incite ppl to burn Mideo’s artwork? what do you think she would say? you think the Pope would advocate violence and threaten bodily harm against ppl he does not agree with?

you too want to avail a brain?

well, there’s no brain that can be found that can work on you.

the problem is, where was the crime?

sa argumento ng mga laban ki Mideo mo makikita ang pag-iisip ng mga panatiko. sayang nga lang at kokonti ng mga relihiyoso na katulad ni Fr. Joaquin Bernas. lumaki ako sa pagtuturo ng mga Heswita at makikita mo talaga ang diperensya ng pagtuturo nila sa pagtuturo ng ibang catholic sects. napaka open-minded nila.

exactly. those people participating in polls are not the sole source. it’s a tv poll, and most probably, the people who have informed decisions would not waste their time answering polls that don’t really count for anything.

Thanks for the correction.

Pangalangan’s first fallacy: It is Mideo’s right to do to what is offensive and not take the consequences.

Pangnalangan’s second fallacy: it is your right to attack the sensibilities of others without limitations.

Pangnalangan’s third fallacy: The CCP is not beholden to public interest - only to the artists.

what are the consequences? i’m sure he has already taken all the verbal abuse and harassment hurled to him by ppl like you, which i’m sure are the consequences he has expected. his artwork has been taken down, and has been vandalized. he has been threatened, and his family too. are there any other consequences he should take?

btw, have the vandals been caught? will they take the consequences too? how about the attempted arsonists? or the inciters to violence? i’m pretty sure somewhere in the law, there is a crime for these things. will they take the consequence too?

please point where Pangalanan stated that.

again, your fallacy is in thinking this is a crime. attacking the sensibilities of others is NOT a crime. otherwise, you would be a criminal for you are attacking my sensibilities. i value sense and sensibility, therefore you are attacking my brain with your faulty logic. please, ban yourself.

there, you see how that sounds? if we go around wanting to shut up everyone that offends us, what happens?

again, please quote Pangalanan where he said that.

btw, your fallacy is in thinking the public interest automatically equates to your interests. dito pa lng nga sa comment board na to, di na tayo magkasundo kung for or against ki Mideo. pano mo pa kaya masasabing, ang side mo ang may hawak ng interes ng publiko? di kaya kaming nagpo protekta sa karapatan ng bawat isang maging malaya sa pagpapahayag ng saloobin nila ang may hawak sa interes ng publiko? o kayo bang nais sumikil dito?

tama, beholden ang CCP sa public interest. pero ano ba ang interest ng publiko dito? sa pagpapalabas ba ng Kulo eh lumawak ang kaalaman ng publiko? dumagdag ba ito sa diskurso ng masang Pilipino? nabuhay ba ang pag-iisip at pagki-kritiko?

eh di sa tingin ko, nagampanan ng CCP ang tungkulin nito sa pagpapalabas ng Kulo. dahil pinukaw nito ang natutulog na kaisipan ng Pilipino. tinulak tayong mag-isip, mag kuro-kuro. cultural center of the philippines, sentro ng kultura. nagsasalamin ba sa kultura ng pilipinas ang kulo?

hi Jek Lopez, my name is Raymond Martin. my email is Raymart111088@yahoo.com. please do send me a picture but not of your mom because i can not do such thing to a devout catholic so i would rather that it was you. i will gladly post in in the internet viz a viz your write up and my simple reply to it with not much fanfare so that Roman Catholics can see how you have generalized and lumped together most of the catholics as idiots with the style you have assailed them in your remarks. he who has not sinned, let him cast the first stone,,,,,,,you are a spotless non-catholic and whatever your Religion is because you eloquently cast perfidy, untruth, chicanery, abuse and all sort of profanity, wickendness and irregularity to the catholic hierarchy.

my reply to jek lopez, hi, i am Raymond Martin, my email is raymart111088@yahoo.com. your mom is a devout catholic, so please, i would rather it was your picture.i will post it in the net with your write up and my simple reply to it so that Roman catholics can see for themselves how you as a sinless and spotless human being has cast the first stone in lumping together catholics as ignorant exploited people by the way you have generalized  and assailed the catholic hierarchy with imputations of perfidy, wickedness, abuse and all sorts of profanity and vulgarity.

hello Martray, please can you wire me the picture of Jek Lopez too once you have it. as a Filipino and a catholic, i can not comprehend  the depth or amount of research that she has done or been doing to have made so bold and confident deductions in her writing that she thought she can dominate with absoluteness. i would like also to know if really she will be so numb for her picture with some enhancement and a dangling penis will be featured in the you tube.

hi M,

how do we know she will send the right picture? must ask for an id.

You would do that, would you?

But Raymond Martin, you are at risk of being exactly that: Exploited by others, through your misplaced sense of offense, to give the powerful an excuse to curtail others’ right to speak. You are ignorant of the fact that the “Catholic hierarchy” does NOT represent the whole nation’s interests. Are you aware that you’ve just outlined a plan to perform an act of cyberbullying? And there you go, you have “fightforphilippines” actually planning to execute your plan. Wonderful. Be careful where your accusations of hypocrisy fly, man.

i did not ask for it, did i? dont even know if she or he? no he will allow his mom’s pic to be bastardized nor a she no matter how liberal. i think she because the tongue is like a  fishbait that reflects the inner self. unless you are reckless, then, you would not even think of people denigrating your mom. what a supercilious callous being.

What?! Speak sense, kababayan!

you must read jek’s and you will see how she impugns in general. reckless imprudence resulting to damage, injury and disrespect with blatant schizo superiority. we can always speak our hearts out for we will not err rather than to write with scorn using only the brain. cyberbullying? who asked for the pic??? respect begets respect.

a noun is not a word?..”A noun is a word which stands for a person, place, or thing.” …”:thinkers” is a word which happens to be a noun…ergo, thinkers is a word…kuha mo logic nito?

Tsk, tsk, tsk. I did not realize the difficulty of people understanding O’Rourke’s dictum. To some, having to take the consequence for their actions is the biggest fallacy of all.

you are as senseless as your acceptance to the even slightest idea of having your mom bastardized in the net with a P hanging in her face as you are receptive to the bizarre idea that the created Artful nonsense is freedom to express. yes, express the devil inacarnate blatant disdain and disrespect  for peace loving and God loving people.

What consequences would you like to see, Nuntiandi? And could you spell out how O’ Rourke’s dictum applies, for the rest of us here, please.

‘They all scream about religious intolerance on the part of Mideo Cruz, but I’ll ask them, “how tolerant are you about other people’s faith?” If I speak out, would you tolerate my beliefs?’

“Kudos to the real Catholics and Christians in this thread, I salute you all. I saw your posts and the most saddening is the fact that you are so few.” 
Thank you Raymond Martin, you have validated my point.

Um, “fightforphilippines” – normally people *do* write using the brain :D  Ganito, ha: Ipagpapaliban muna natin yung post mo’ng nauna:

“hello Martray, please can you wire me the picture of Jek Lopez too once you have it…”

Tapos sundan natin yung abiso ni Manny Pacquio: “Chillax muna” Halatang agitated ka rito, at sunod-sunod ang postings mo. Ibibigay ko sa iyo, offensive nga siguro yung exhibit; at malamang offended ka rin na mayro’ng ganitong klaseng kabastusan na nagaganap.

Yung pinakatutunton natin rito e: Kahit offensive pa man, kahit bastos pa man ang anumang sinulat, o nilikha, hindi maaring i-censor o ipagbawal. Kapag sinimulan natin dito – saan tayo titigil? Kapag may nabastos ba’ng corrupt na opisyal dahil naisuwalat yung kamalian niya, maari siyang magkaso sa korte, para patahimikin ang press. Hindi malayo yan: Parehong “free speech” yung likha ni Mideo Cruz, kahit gaano kapangit nu’n sa iba, at ang likha ng reporter sa radyo, TV at print. 

Mapeligro’ng hingin, yang ninanais mong mangyari. Hayaan mo na.

so because you so hated what Mideo did, gagawin mo rin ito? mukhang mabuting Kristyano ka nga.

pare please lang, itigil mo na ang pag-iingles. pinagtatawanan ka na ng marunong mag-ingles dito. gumaya ka na lng saking nagta-tagalog lng.

quid pro quo, universal causality of cause and effect. you have to be receptive to the consequences of your actions. i did not even say i will do it at the onset, the writer dares people to do it. you disrespect somebody, you want respect in return? maybe when you are remorseful for your action but not when you dare people and make them feel stupid by your disdain for their nuts. there has got to be a parting line, lest, you will not learn. people must learn and we learn everyday and we must accept our shortcomings and insulting and disrespecting the majority and still brag about it haughtily is and must be taken into a different level of reckoning. we must at some point wake up to our numbness.

eh di ka pala marunong na kristyano eh. di naman quid pro quo ang tinuro ni Hesus. di naman eye for an eye ang pinangaral nya eh.

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42

all say that we are never to repay evil with evil and we instead should overcome evil with good –
Romans 12:17,21; 1 Thess. 5:15; 1Peter 3:9

The fourth fallacy of Pangalangan: The lesser known the artist and the more hate it generates, the more it must be protected.

The fifth fallacy of Pangalangan: There is no basis for punishing libelous and defamatory offenses.

The sixth fallacy of Pangalangan: The more offensive the act, the more we should defend it.

The seventh fallacy of Pangalangan: Bad taste is just as good as good taste, therefore there is no aesthetic difference between the wooden penis of Mideo and Michaelangelo’s Pieta.

The eighth fallacy of Pangalangan: Those who abhorr bad taste are mere hecklers - let’s have more of Mideo’s wooden penises stuck into religious images and all.

Just to disabuse the minds of those who are enthralled with Pangalangan’s fallacies: it was the same Oliver Wendell Holmes whom he quoted copiously who said “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.”

but you gave a proper term to the other tapos ito biglang “simple word” so walang consistency. rule din kaya yun. english major ako eh. end of digression.

so have you tried going to church abroad and have you compared it with the religious practices in the philippines?

he’s sharing his informed choices as a result of studying in harvard. that’s different from wanting to impress. but alas! welcome to the philippines, where having graduated from a top university is apparently a bad thing. oh, and it appears that being gay is looked down upon as well. impressive!

/Those who abhorr bad taste are mere hecklers - let’s have more of
Mideo’s wooden penises stuck into religious images and all.// If they

//. To some, having to take the consequence for their actions is the biggest fallacy of all.// Good point Nuntiandi. Let’s arrest the vandal who defaced several pieces of art that belong to somebody else.

Nuntiandi, freedom of speech isn’t freedom from criticism.

//It is Mideo’s right to do to what is offensive and not take the consequences.// Nuntiandi’s fallacy – insinuating that creating a painting that offends religious fundamentalists should be paid for in blood. Mideo has been receiving death threats since this brouhaha started. Am I to assume you condone them, since you’re saying he gets what he deserves?

So let me get this straight. You, as somebody who writes in all-caps, and dismisses anything you dislike with the derogatory word “gay,” are belittling a column for being below your standards?

Please, write for us then. I’d love to see what that mind of yours can conjure up.

It’s called the crab mentality. I think a lot of our country as so bloody stupid, that their only defense mechanism against anybody who makes sense is to try to beittle them by calling them gay.

As if being homosexual was evil.

nag-kolehiyo rin ako sa teritoryo ng Heswita, at napansin ko na sinira nila yung kinalakihan kong pagtingin sa relihiyon. lalo na sa philosophy of religion, ang daming deconstruction sa image ni jesus at nahalughog talaga yung mga paniniwala ko. sabi ng mga guro, sinisira nila yung hesus na kilala natin para daw mas malakas ang basehan ng paniniwala natin.

at sila lang din yata ang nagsabi na dahil isang katolikong institusyon ang paaralan namin, sasabihin nila na tutol sila sa RH, pero hindi rin nila sinasabi na ito ang kailangan paniwalaan ng lahat ng miyembro ng paaralan.

then delete all your comments!

//. If you are really for freedom of expression as you so eloquently
discoursed, you should lend your talent to Mideo’s defence in a legal
argument- instead of perorating your hatred against Catholicism in this
thread.// So pointing out the legal bullying and death threats that Mideo is getting is “hatred for Catholics?”

Tell me good sir, from which planet do you hail from?

that is because Jesuits encourage free-thinking. they would rather convince you than shut you up. they don’t preach by force.

// Bad taste is just as good as good taste, therefore there is no
aesthetic difference between the wooden penis of Mideo and
Michaelangelo’s Pieta.// Nuntiandi’s fallacy: That he has a developed taste in art.

/ The lesser known the artist and the more hate it generates, the more it must be protected.// Nuntiandis fallacy: That the person’s fame or social standing reflects how much we should defend them.

don’t you even think that you’re not even making any sense?

we’re not complaining. so maybe you need to brush up on your english.

you should stop reading here if you don’t understand a thing. okay, for you, to paraphrase: it is okay to do your thing if it is NOT ILLEGAL!!! 

the art exhibit was also displayed in the Loyola School of Theology, which means the exhibit was also given the approval to be installed in such a religious territory. why were there no complaints? it may not have been a very publicly accessible venue, but it’s the school of theology and nobody was exorcised nor condemned.

Then Peter came and said to him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Until seven times?”Jesus said to him, “I don’t tell you until seven times, but, until seventy times seven. Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who wanted to reconcile accounts with his servants. When he had begun to reconcile, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But because he couldn’t pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down and knelt before him, saying, ‘Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all!’ The lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.”But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he grabbed him, and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’”So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will repay you!’ He would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay back that which was due. So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry, and came and told to their lord all that was done. Then his lord called him in, and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt, because you begged me. Shouldn’t you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?’ His lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him. So my heavenly Father will also do to you, if you don’t each forgive your brother from your hearts for his misdeeds.”— Matthew 18:21-35,

the only limit to freedom of speech (and expression) follows the harm principle.

the only time this freedom should be limited is when the practice of this freedom poses harm to another person.

please quote this fallacy.

“But even if I am not catholic, that doesn’t necessarily mean that I am on a vendetta against Catholicism or the people who believe in it”
that’s taken verbatim from Jek’s comment. so your assertion that Jek has “cast the first stone in lumping together catholics as ignorant exploited people by the way you have generalized  and assailed the catholic hierarchy with imputations of perfidy, wickedness, abuse and all sorts of profanity and vulgarity” is totally untrue and without basis.

ah. i wait for that moment.

Had Mideo invented his own art and not bastardized the images that others hold dear, I could have been one of his defenders. Poor CCP, is the Philippine art scene so devoid of creativity that they could only scrape the bottom of the art of the toilet? Why,for those with a yen for toilet arts, the grafittis in public toilets definitely offer more contents and value!

@Nuntiandi:disqus Good idea. Mideo should have used a more peaceful medium, such as writing, to send his message. Oh wait, your church didn’t like it either when Noli Me Tangere came out! They even attempted to have it banned. Film perhaps? No, no – the CBCP also raised a stink when The Da Vinci Code and The Golden Compass were shown in local theatres.  My point is that regardless of the medium or your personal opinions on what counts for art, there is nothing that does not offend your handler’s sensibilities. Grow up.

The ninth fallacy of Pangalangan: For anyone to be accorded protection from censorship one will need to bastardize the sensibilities of others. In other words, hey its ok to stick wooden penises on anyone’s image since this is protected by so-called freedom of expression principles.

//For anyone to be accorded protection from censorship one will need to bastardize the sensibilities of others.// The ninth fallacy of Nuntiandi: That censorship should be imposed on anybody who offends his onion-skinned sensibilities.

Like I said some countless times before, I am not against Catholicism
wholesale. I just do not agree with a totalitarian imposition on Censorship
that right now could be gained by the Catholic Church. I am for change, and I
really do pity how any form of religion insist on always following tradition
over practicality. It is alright to turn to your faith for salvation, but it is
also necessary to listen to reason while we are in this temporary world. Did I call
on everyone to burn churches? Did I call for the genocide of all Catholics? No,
I merely pointed out how the clergy is not too perfect for them to judge those
that they do not know. If you can give me facts that dispute the inactions or inabilities
of the clergy, then I will listen to you. I will not scream invectives at you
or burn you at the stake. I will process it, I will reason with or against it,
and if it truly is acceptable then I will assimilate it to my knowledge. Trust me,
I can converse with a priest, or a rabbi, or an imam in a gentle and respectful
discussion about the intricacies of faith and religion as long as they too are
open to reason and friendly debate. You see nothing is forever, we can all
change.

Before Catholicism/Christianity, Jesus was himself just a Jew, but his
view on certain Jewish traditions promoted change in the practices of people. For
example, the Leviticus had some passages regarding which food are unclean to
eat but Jesus expressed the idea that it is not the unclean that enters your
mouth which matters, but the unclean that comes out from it. So he precipitated
change, and we all know what certain Jewish Pharisees did to him for it. His
crucifixion WAS the censorship provided, but did it kill the idea? If it did then you wouldn’t be here now. Do you
honestly think that I, as one person voicing his beliefs, can affect all those
who practice your religion to suddenly turn their heads and walk away from
their faith? C’mon, surely your faith is deeper than that.

I propose dialogue, I propose change, and I oppose censorship that is all.
It is only because it IS the Catholic Church who is asking for this censorship
that I must speak out some things that are against them. If it was any other
form of religion or sect or even government institution that would impose this
kind of censorship upon our people, I would still do the same. But if that is
your opinion, I can understand. I do not want to change you, and I do not want
you to agree to everything I say. You follow it and I will follow mine because we
will all be judged later according to God but, for now, while we’re here on
earth we all go according to law. But if any of us stoops so low as to commit
the very same “crime” or “blasphemy” charged to Mideo, then
what goodness would that bring?

I never said that I am without sin, and I never said that I was without
flaw. But I acknowledge my flaws  in order to become better and conversations like the one we are having brings
us one step closer to individual growth and perfection. How can we do this if
we are limited by censorship? If we are not allowed to speak our minds, or seek
new knowledge, or find dialogue both from similar and opposing views?

Why so afraid of doing it to someone Catholic then? Are you afraid
you’re going to get a taste of whatever was thrown at Mideo? And as for giving
out my picture to you for “desecration”, you really don’t have to
bother at all. I have already “desecrated” my body according to what
is “forbidden” in the holy book. I have made it my profile picture
and you may look at it or not, it all depends on you lest someone becomes
enraged and tries to burn me personally. For those who have open minds, I have
on my back a Pentagram which in Druidism/Wiccan and various “pagan”
societies is a symbol of protection together with a Gaelic/Celtic
interpretation of the universal concept of Good triumphing over Evil,
represented by the Catholic/Christian/Muslim/Jewish account of St. Michael
casting down Lucifer and inked into my body in remembrance of the Filipino “Pintados”
culture of natives having tattoos as a rite of passage, of triumph in adversity,
and in order to be seen by the Gods.

So how am I intolerant? Or better yet, how tolerant can you be? Would you
read and reread my post before judging me? Or would you rather like to have a
very enlightening conversation that is free from censorship? Thanks for your
thoughts.

The tenth fallacy of Pangalangan: Mideo belongs to “marginalized minorities”. Therefore he must be protected.

The eleventh fallacy of Pangalangan: Putting wooden penises on somebody’s image is within the purview of “a Filipino national culture … in a climate of free artistic and intellectual expression” (Article XIV, Sec. 14).

The tweltfth fallacy of Pangalangan: The entire Philippine society is only composed of so-called “liberals” who “distinguish between permission and praise, between allowing a practice and endorsing it.” So the rest of the Philippine society can only take the cue from them on matters of art.

//Mideo belongs to “marginalized minorities”. Therefore he must be protected.// The tenth fallacy of Nuntiandi: That only the free speech of minorities should be protected. only half true. A democracy aims to protect the right to free speech of all its people; It just so happens that the system is more favorable for minorites because it prevents their rights from being bulldozed by the whims of the majority.

The eleventh fallacy of Nuntiandi: That Article XIV, Sec. 14, only pertains to art that is agreeable with his tastes and that of the CBCP. If I remember my history classes, the phallus was in fact considered a sacred symbol of fertility in Filipino Tribal Culture. A shame your knowledge of history isn’t as sharp as your ability to distort interpretations of our constitution.

The tweltfth fallacy of Nuntiandi: That the Philippines should only listen to the ramblings of an elite few self-righteous prudes, the same sort who think that they can dispense their “Christian” morals on everybody else, whether we like it or not.

I can see why the CBCP and its fanclub are frothing at the mouth over this issue. The United Nations Human Rights Council has released General Comment, No. 34, which affirms the superiority of the right to free speech over the so-called right against blasphemy.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/GC34.pdf

Quoting the relevant points, all signatories of this document are legally bound…

“to guarantee the right to freedom of expression… This right includes…
political discourse, commentary on one’s own and on public affairs,
canvassing, discussion of human rights, journalism, cultural and
artistic expression, teaching, and religious discourse. It may also
include commercial advertising.”

And guess whose name is among the signatories: The Republic of the Philippines. There is a limitation however:

To clarify, GC34 allows for laws against speech that could incite violence,
discrimination, or hostility against a race, nation, or religion. In short, it allows for laws against threats of violence and death. As anybody can imagine, the so-called Christians who’ve been calling for violent action are going to be in deep, deep doo-doo if they’re taken to task for all the vitriol they’ve been tossing around.

Maybe that was why on the news it was only now, after a few weeks of rage, have the priests cooled down and asked their flock to “just forgive” Mideo for his actions. 

Translating Nuntiandi’s Comments: HURR DURR!

The fifth fallacy of Nuntiandi: There IS a basis for There is no basis for punishing expressions of speech if they either deny the freedom of speech of other people, or incite people to commit violent acts. The only group I’ve seen demanding somebody dead are the people offended by the exhibit.

Is disapproval coming from a majority = heckler’s veto?

Would be interesting to see what the “artist” thinks about a picture of his own mom with its mouth stuck with the same object placed on the face of Jesus in his “collage”

“Liberals often take pride…” So what?!

Proponents of Kulo invariably invoke the measuring stick of tolerance. They claim that religion still holds our minds in such a “vise” that when it is confronted with things like putting wooden penises on someone’s image, we can’t even pretend to practtice tolerance – for which Christian religion stands. And here lies the question: how can someone who does not subscribe to Christian ethics compel another to practice it? In other words, it is like the Nazi requiring Jews to strictly observe Kosher food. From what ethical platform do these modern day Pharisees assume such lofty guile?
M. Scott Peck, in his book, People of the Lie, concluded that the devil’s cleverest vile is to convince us that there is no such thing as evil. When Mideo foists his art on the pretext of “awakening” our consciousness to the “evils” of “polytheism” the slant was so cunning that one could only feel a torrent of guilt for practicing one’s religion.
Even for the uninitiated, human evil is that which destroys human life. More telling, however, is what characterizes evil. According to Peck, it is the persistent and accumulative refusal of the evil person to face the truth about himself. He may admit publicly that, of course, he is a sinner just like everyone else. But deep down inside he does not believe it. So rather than face up to his own evil, he is constantly scapegoating: laying it on other people, making his faults theirs. Evil people are masters of disguise, morally. They are constantly dodging their conscience. In other words, evil people are liars. Hence the title of the book.
So when certain “educated” artists tell us that we are religious fanatics for abhorring Mideo’s use of offensive defacement of religious objects, when they convince you that you are too prudish to abhor such work of art, let us not forget the devils guise: there is no such thing as evil. Herein lies the lie.

//So when certain “educated” artists tell us that we are religious
fanatics for abhorring Mideo’s use of offensive defacement of religious
objects, when they convince you that you are too prudish to abhor such
work of art, let us not forget the devils guise: there is no such thing
as evil. Herein lies the lie.//

The lie being propagated here is that your people are blameless. How many of your compatriots have resorted to death threats against Mideo in the name of defending Christianity? Are they not more evil than this slight you bring up, since they’re calling for blood?

Ang ganda ah…may anting-anting ka pa la sa likod…so hindi ka na nyan tablan ng bala? oppps…tanong ko lang ha…baka mamaya isipin nyo death threats yan…

//Ang ganda ah…may anting-anting ka pa la sa likod…so hindi ka na nyan
tablan ng bala? oppps…tanong ko lang ha…baka mamaya isipin nyo
death threats yan…// Not funny. Saying that to a complete stranger who has no idea of you’re joking or not can get you charged with assault. And no, pleading mental incapacity or stupidity won’t let you off the hook.

am pre-occupied. will get back on this. you can deny but you can review what you have written and see if you are what you claim and say..

The problem with rights is that these are elements that are fluid. We can all claim rights to certain things and exact violence just to claim them. Mideo and his ilk exacted cultural violence against the people ande expecting a crass response he has been subjected to. He meant to hurt others and he got his response. After all, no art , and obviously, human rights does not exist in a social vacuum. Everytime a persons rights are asserted, there is always a response in terms of the society having to accomodate the fulfillment of this right, or where some other persons rights are afected. Asserting rights is not a zero sum game. cruz’s work was a swipe at all manner of faith and worship, which many other have a right to.

Mideo’s defenders are now lumping together those who simply dislike Mideo’s use of wooden penises with those who commit the crime of attempted arson, death threats, calling for his blood and the likes. Since these are evil things, those who abhor Mideo’s works are several times more evil than the Kulo exhibit, so their “reasoning” would want us to believe. According the Mideo’s apologists, Kulo exhibit pales in comparison to the evil done by those who object to it.
This argument is another fallacy called “Two wrongs make a right”. This is a classic fallacy that seeks to defend a wrong action as being right because someone previously has acted wrongly. Worse, this is a double fallacy since it also employs a wrongful generalization which assumes that those who committed these crimes and those who simply objected to the Kulo are one and the same. As earlier pointed out by M Scott Peck’s taxonomy of evil doers, these are ”normal” people who can reason out well but are masters of guile. This time they twist the argument to suit their penchant for deception.

what is it that i did not respect? the opinion of others? I do not belittle opinions, i only make things clear.

Nuntiandi, the real fallacy here is that you’re trying to equate art that offends you with death threats and vandalism.

//This is a classic fallacy that seeks to defend a wrong action as being
right because someone previously has acted wrongly. Worse, this is a
double fallacy since it also employs a wrongful generalization which
assumes that those who committed these crimes and those who simply
objected to the Kulo are one and the same.//

And you are guilty of trying to pull off the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Humahanga lang naman ako sa tatoo nya sa likod…tapos kung ano ano na yang sinsabi mong mental incapacity or stupidity…sinasabi ko na nga na hindi death threats yon., sino ba naman gustong papatay ng tao, pwera lang kung siguro wala nang pagasa sa buahay…pero ano kayang assault doon sa sinasabi ko kahit stranger pa yong tinatanong ko….parang masyado na yata kayong pikon…

Mideo’s defenders are now lumping together!
That could make a nice nursery rhyme.

Can’t you make an argument without sour grapes tho?
I heard sour grapes makes bitter whine.

o baka masyado ka na yatang nakakabastos.

for you to resort to using human instinct as an argument, you just lost your grip on EVERYTHING you said to defend the catholic church.

ah, bastos na pala ngayon ang magtatanong…pero baka lang naman di ba? okay lang kung anong sasabihin nyo kung yan ba ay nakakaluwag sa puso nyo eh…basta huwag lang kayong mapipikon.

and that’s or theirs another lies… who will agree to kill medeo.. only ignorant if not evil.. ;(

ok that belongs to cruz’s hecklers too.. what he did was more than pieta of michelangelo but the very spirit of it all.. and yo call that win-win?..!

//sinasabi ko na nga na hindi death threats yon., sino ba naman gustong
papatay ng tao, pwera lang kung siguro wala nang pagasa sa buahay…pero
ano kayang assault doon sa sinasabi ko kahit stranger pa yong
tinatanong ko….parang masyado na yata kayong pikon…// You’d be surprised Ozamis. To cite a specific example, Family Planning Dr. George Tiller received numerous death threats in the US because he conducted abortions. The police didn’t take them that seriously.

Tiller was gunned down in his community’s church, and the perpetrator was a known Christian fundamentalist.

What you call an empty threat, people like me, who have seen the uglier side of Christianity, take very, very seriously.

The world around us is a text to be  read either literally (what is, as is) or reading beyond, behind or around it. We always try to find meaning in things we see. We don’t stop until we make heads and tails about them. In literature there are such  things as writerly and readerly texts. Most postmodern writers whose text falls under the former classification which is not reader-friendly, leave it to the reader to make sense or meaning of their text. It is along this vein that, since I am not an artist, I tried to make sense of M. Cruz’ artwork. Take note: I am not defending him. My interpretation may be literal but I am entitled to it, am I not? What is sad is not making any sense of the thing at all. If the thing is abstract, then I’d be entirely groping in the dark.  Life is to be lived meaningfully

Relaks ka lang, bro…ayaw ko rin ng gulo…kahit magkaiba ang pananaw natin pero Pilipino pa rin tayo…Pro RH din ako kahit ako’y Catholiko…PEACE…

I have participated in this thread for quite some time now, and since
I’ve already said my piece I must attend to other pressing matters. Like I said
before, each and every man must find his own path to salvation. But I will
dearly remember the time I spent here.

To those who shared my views, thank you for your support. It was a
pleasure conversing with like-minded people. Never stop seeking knowledge and
growth.

To those who opposed my views, I respect your opinion and thank you for
helping me grow. I did learn a lot from your opinions, and I hope you did from
me too.

To the real Catholics and Christians who practice Jesus’ real teachings,
I salute you all.

To those who posted incoherent remarks, please do study more for your
own growth and to be able to express yourselves more clearly. I do not wish to
malign you, the government itself has faults in the funding of our educational
system, but that is a different story.

To everyone, participate in friendly and lively discussion! You are
currently exercising your rights to free expression! Follow your faith or
follow your reason it doesn’t matter, that will be your own choice for which
you should be respected. Respect and forgive your adversary, but never forget
the lessons learned.

No matter how some of you here might think of me or label me, I
understand. If by any chance a day would come that the Catholics/Christians or
any other form of organized religion are the ones being subject to censorship,
I will stand by them and fight for their right to express themselves too.

It was really enlightening to see all colors of the spectrum, some
religious people who were either  for or
against forgiving Mideo, and some liberals who were also composed of those for
and against Mideo’s approach to the work. None of us here are better than
anyone else, but we all can help each other become better individuals. Most of
us here aren’t lawyers, or priests, or art critics, we’re just human beings
giving voice to our beliefs.  The
professional art critics have thus far been divided as to whether it was art or
not, the priests so far have called for forgiveness, some lawyers have deemed
it prosecutable under some loophole in the Constitution, while some lawyers
have proclaimed that “blasphemy” is not criminally liable but
“arson” and “threats of violence or murder” is.

We should all celebrate and congratulate ourselves for this piece of
history where we all mingled and interjected our takes on the issue at hand. We
should congratulate ourselves because thus far no one has been shot, or burned,
or killed. Surely we all have the right to defend our faith, to defend our criticisms
of religion, to spew out our disgust, or preach for understanding. But what we really
should be thankful for is that, whether we oppose or agree to each other’s
opinions, we were never censored. Imagine that this place where we convene
would be gone, if certain powers get hold of exclusive rights to blanket
censorship, how will we ever find the courage to speak up again?

You see, it was never just about a man, an artwork, or about a religion,
the issue here is that censorship should not be allowed so easily without us
questioning the grounds regarding its imposition. The last time that that
happened here on our soil, thousands we’re jailed, summary executed, or simply
disappeared from the face of the earth, only for speaking against a man who
held an iron fist to our throats. Everyone must be free to express themselves
and to be responsible enough to face the aftermath but only according to the laws
of our country and the judgment of God after life.

No to censorship in whatever form or from whatever institution!

God bless you all.

to give disapproval and that which results in a certain form of censorship like not allowing the artist's work to be exhibited is an inevitble consequence of an art that does not promote unity but encourages discord.  I agree with you on the point that we can disagree without being disagreeable.

________________________________

For all we know, Mideo and his defenders are merely trying to use the Kulo incident as a media hype to ensure complete freedom of expression is maintained. And they have every right to do so. They figured out that by using extreme cases of abhorrent tastes, they can convince the public that free expression is at stake here and it should be the supreme end of liberty. And again, they are right on the nail. In so doing they saw to it that the debate be confined to whether we shoudl ban an exhibit simply because many are revulsed by it. And again they have every right to advance their argument  to prove their point. However, this cannot be contained in the field of freedom of expression alone. For as the adage goes, we cannot leave the business of war to the generals alone, neither can we leave the business of art to the artists alone, if we are to protect it for posterity. The bigger issue here is the future of Philippine Art. What kind of art will we have if all we can do is grow obscenity and unbriddled disrespect for our time-honored values as a people? How can Philippine art bloom to a new rennaissance if all we can do is desecrate our sense of faith, reverence and honor in the after-life? True not all of us believe in the transcendent, but can a society that seeks to bastardize the heritage and beliefs of its mothers grow into a caring and nurturing, let alone creative and vibrant art scene? Can we enrich our artistic talents by eating trash? What profit will our freedom bring us if we lose the soul of our nobility as a malayan race? At best these brats tried to kill what remains of our sense of beauty and they call it “art”. Worse, they tried to make us feel guilty for complaining.
But all is not lost. We have our freedom to do what we d-mn please. But we can learn to seek beauty as we face the consequence of our folly and what dreams may come of the things our mothers hold dear.

Instantly Mideo Cruz became popular. What he has done is unforgettable. In the world of art the work of mr.Cruz will be historically engraved. He dared what is forbidden and he reaped the outcome. I just wonder how does he feel for what he has done? Was he happy? Did he regret? Was he afraid because of the reactions? What lesson did he learn? Too many questions to ask which for us, too many lessons also to learn?

So many have debated this issue but no one seems to have asked Mideo Cruz: what really is his point in making polyteismo? We should ask him so he could explain what he is trying to express by his work. Then we could judge if his is a valid exercise of the freedom of expression.

Actually, he already did. The message is a lot more decent than everyone thought it would be. The Mickey mouse painted on the face of Christ for example, is a representation of how the Filipinos worship Hollywood, Obama, and etc. That’s why it’s compared to Polytheism. Now the condoms, male organ, and etc is a symbolism that shows the oppression of the females and a lot of things like the RH Bill, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Generally, it’s not really about religion. Perhaps religious fundamentalism is one of the core issues, but that’s more on “fundamentalism” (the Filipino fanaticism) than “religion”.

Personally, I don’t like his style in portraying things although I admire his guts to do so. On the other hand, the detractors just proved the art’s message. Mideo’s not the only one who noticed the widespread religious fundamentalism in the Philippines either. The topic’s been a hot issue all over the net, and the deep net. In facebook for example, you can expect to see heated debates even on walls everywhere when you look up the terms atheist/agnostic Filipinos. The most common issue being thrown against the pro-religion is always the RH BIll, same s e x marriage, and divorce law.

Art is very much like the Rorschach – the viewer
sees himself in a looking glass, mirroring him in the face – showing him
either his own inner glorious self or his own despicable vile
reflection . . .

Catapulted into an arena that challenges his thoughts and emotions, the viewer will unwittingly attribute to the artwork qualities that are actually descriptions of himself.

A piece of art will be seen differently by many different viewers as the viewers will see it not as it is ,but rather, they will see it as they are.

Whatever happened to that case between INC and Dating Daan? Did’nt that involve freedom expression too? How come that case came out the other way and Can you discuss the Supreme Court’s decision on the case?

What is so real with a picture of a western looking supposedly jew with blue eyes and with a spanish name….? It sounds more like a confused caricature  than something real. Are you saying delusion takes on a more important role than reality?

The christian bible’s commandments includes the command  ‘thou shall not worship idols and graven images’ , so why are the catholics offended? are they not christians ? What’s the big deal with the penis on the face of that Jesus something?

At first glance it looked like another god Ganesha or Pinocchio who just told a lie and whose nose just got longer…

Have you considered those who abhor religious idols and graven images  when they are paraded in the public government funded streets and shoved right into their faces even while they are at home? They just shrug it off and have a good laugh respecting your freedom to practice a religion.

After all the many centuries of this hypocritical religion committing injustices even murdering those who do not share their religious views and demonizing everyone who do not believe in their imagined ‘one and only true god’ , now has the nerve to complain that their faith is being blasphemed ( by the way it is a human right to blaspheme according to the United nations which the Philippines  is part of) and laughed at?

We respect your belief in your religion and your god in the same way we respect your belief that your wife is beautiful and your children smart. But we don’t have to agree of course that what you believe in is real and true.

We live in a secular country. We are a democracy. We are not a theocracy.

So why all the fury when someone does not share your belief and reverence in your imaginary god?

just asking.

In response to all the self-righteous religious fanatics:

What is so big deal with a picture of a western looking supposedly jew with
blue eyes and with a spanish name….? It sounds more like a confused
caricature  than something real. Are you saying delusion takes on a more
important role than reality?

The christian bible’s commandments
includes the command  ‘thou shall not worship idols and graven images’ ,
so why are the catholics offended? are they not christians ? What’s the
big deal with the penis on the face of that Jesus something?

At first glance it looked like another god Ganesha or Pinocchio who just told a lie and whose nose just got longer…

Have
you considered those who abhor and find despicable religious idols and graven images  when
they are paraded in the public government funded streets and shoved
right into their faces even while they are at home? They just shrug it
off and have a good laugh respecting your freedom to practice a
religion.

After all the many centuries of this hypocritical
religion committing injustices even murdering those who do not share
their religious views and demonizing everyone who do not believe in
their imagined ‘one and only true god’  - 
now has the nerve to complain
that their faith is being blasphemed ( by the way it is a human right to
blaspheme according to the United nations which the Philippines  is
part of ) and their religious images laughed at?

We do respect your belief in your religion
and your belief in your god in the same way we respect your belief that your wife is
beautiful and your children smart. But we don’t have to agree of course
that what you believe in is real and true.

Do you not condescend on others who belong to other faiths by claiming that your ‘god’ is the one and only true ‘god’ ?

Do you not insult the sensibilities of others as you evangelize and spread the word of your god, assuming that the other does not have a ‘god ‘ of his own or does not believe in a ‘god’ at all and thereby inferior and needed to be saved by you and your faith ?

Do you not mock and ‘demonize ‘ those who do not believe in ‘gods’ ?

So why all the fury when someone does not share your belief and reverence in your imaginary god?

just asking.

…. and get real.

We live in a secular country. We are a democracy. We are not a theocracy.
.

even if it is the picture of someone else or with or without a picture of someone else, showing a sex organ in public is a disgrace. God covered adam and eve with clothing when they were driven out from eden. noah cursed his son for not covering him while he was uncovered. Jesus was according to the bible exhibit to public disgrace because he was uncovered. 2000 years ago people knew it is a disgrace. today people does not discern it because of freedom.

when did it happen that those threat was true?  it was simple scapegoat if not cowardice ;-))

A response against the indignation towards the artist free expression:

“I’ll
tell you what you did with Atheists for about 1500 years. You outlawed
them from the universities, or any teaching careers, besmirched their
reputations, banned or burned their
books or their writings of any kind, drove them into exile, humiliated
them, seized their properties, arrested them for blasphemy.

You
dehumanized them with beatings and exquisite torture, gouged out their
eyes, slit their tongues, stretched, crushed, or broke their limbs, tore
off their breasts if they were a woman, crushed their scrotums if they
were men, imprisoned them, stabbed them, disemboweled them, hung them,
burnt them alive.

And you have the nerve enough to complain to me that I laugh at you.”

-Dr. Madalyn Murray O’HairFounder “American Atheists, Inc.”

religious sensibilities should never be offended, whatever religion they may be. That’s why its freedom is guaranteed… Secular democracies maintain their balance when god is acknowledged, however imaginary, and turn into chaos when god is absent. The United states of today is such an example. It has deified money and personal  freedoms to the point that then such things are absent, the nations congress cannot even agree on a budget, and people are scared.  That is reality, and research bears that out. Nations cannot exist without a sublime idea, and the existence of god is one such thing. No wonder you sound so chaotic, as it seems to me that you don’t have one. Im sorry but i consider the freedom of religion higher than the freedom of expression. The use of Hurtful language or expression is not an absolute right and is subject to limitations, especially when vulnerable sectors are affected, like children, indigenous peoples and their “imaginary gods.” They may not be as intellectually sophisticated as lawyers or atheists, but they are citizens of this secular democracy as you and me. Why should we allow mideo cruz to trample upon their “primitive beliefs,” because they are stupid? Mideo Cruz’s work expresses an arrogance against those he sees as lesser than him.
The fury of those like us who defend our freedom of religion is therefore understandable, as we are defending a right which others have expressed a desire to destroy.