Is there a Right to Offend?

The recent issue of tour guide and activist Carlos Celdran’s imprisonment raised discussions on “offense.” Some say the Catholic Church was onion-skinned and should not have taken offense at his action. Thus, Celdran’s supporters would say that the church was oppressive by using its power to imprison an opponent.

I-Am-OffendedSome also hit Article 133 of the Penal Code under which Celdran was cited, saying it is outdated and needless, and should be scrapped. Some have cried foul over it, calling it a tool for protecting the Church against any sort of criticism. But is it? My own pondering on the issue found otherwise.

Another question is, are Celdran, and other parties who are angry at the Church for its anti-RH stance, entitled to a purported “right to offend?”

Firstly, why would people so vehemently defend their “right” to offend? Because they enjoy another’s squirming when receiving an offense? Schadenfreude? That would be immature and uncivilized.

I believe there is no right to offend. Because “offend” in the law’s sense is having malice for or intention to harm someone. That is also why they call a violation of a law an “offense.” And ethics and wisdom dictate that if you have malice, or wish evil for someone, then you are one of the dregs of society. You are not “helping the Philippines,” which some critics of GRP accuse us of failing to do.

Some people say that offending someone or something is the only way to draw attention to a topic, or is the best thing you could to do to try and at least discomfit an “oppressor.”

But does it really help?

It likely does not. The Spinbusters article puts it nicely:

It doesn’t even matter that what Celdran disrupted was not a Mass. The same law applies in case Celdran summons the courage to invade the Quiapo Golden Mosque and call the ululating imams terrorists; or sneak inside the INC central spaceship, er, temple, and call the late Felix Manalo a rapist and a charlatan. There’s a reason Celdran’s offense is still in the statute books along with sundry crimes like slander and estafa.

What Celdran did was a publicity stunt, not an exercise of freedom of speech. He can’t badmouth the bishops in their own cathedral any more than we can show up unannounced at his dinner table and call him a retard and a hopeless reprobate. In the same vein, we can’t disrupt the editors of PDI in the middle of their story conference just to exercise our free speech and call them out for being jaundiced journalists.

The article also points out that the “People of the Republic of the Philippines” is the prosecuting party. The government is the one charging Celdran. Not the Church.

Loudly and intrusively offending and insulting people is a juvenile, primitive, usually unthinking and unnecessarily noisy action. It is not even freedom of expression, but rather an abuse of it, in my view. That is what Article 133 of the Penal Code may seek to impress on people. If you seek to actively offend people, you’re not helping. You’re only KSP (Kulang Sa Pansin).

But let’s look at the other side. Say, if someone is “offended” by, let’s say, your being dark-skinned, by you’re being a Goth, your being a lover of metal music or by any faculty of yours that is natural or is harmless to others? Sometimes there are people offended by you being yourself. Then it means the other party chose to be offended and is making a mountain out of a molehill. Let’s say, a person practices religion, but an atheist is offended by it. The atheist is the one who chose to see someone else’s practice as offensive and is actually offending themselves. The religious person never offended them (and the one who feels “insulted” is actually KSP). I agree that there are such situations.

But another rule actually operates in the case at hand: what you do defines what you are. If you offend others loudly, with the intention to destroy or humiliate based only on little or no evidence, what does that reflect about you? It may mean that you have no respect for the rights of others.

Article 133 and the part on libel exist in the Penal Code to remind people of their responsibilities on what they say and do to others. If you say something that may harm a person, even emotionally or mentally, then you should be held responsible for it. You can’t just get away with anything you say or do. You can’t go scot-free. Everything we do has consequences.

What if the defaming statement leads to a person losing their job or causing their family to leave them? And this happens even if the charge is proven false? Then the defamer has wrongly ruined a person’s life! That’s what anti-defamation laws are trying to prevent (With the DOJ now working on a new Criminal Code, I wonder how it will word the new anti-defamation provision, if there still will be any). Your “right to offend” ends when someone else’s security in life is compromised.

The problem with some “free speech” advocates is that they want to be able to insult or offend others without reaping the consequences. In other words, they want impunity (one of the parts of the great Filipino Cultural Trinity of dysfunctions). They want to escape responsibility, and want no punishment even if their words create unreasonable damage. If they say the person they defamed deserves the misfortune encountered through the defamation, then they prove to be no better than society’s “dregs.” This certainly adds to, rather than helps solve, the dysfunctions of our country.

If we criticize the government and others, we do so in our own space and without any need to invade anyone else’s privacy, or without destroying someone’s life or an institution’s reputation. Basically, the lesson here is, you may have the right intention, but the way you do it matters. The end does not justify the means.

print

About ChinoF

I stick with this blog because I believe, as my cohorts do, that many things Filipino embrace as part of their culture keep their society backward. And blogging freely to show that in a truly decent society, with true freedom of speech, even nobodies have a voice.

50 Comments on “Is there a Right to Offend?”

  1. For those who claim GRP has gone to the well too much on this topic, one way to prevent this is to make sure everybody out there doesn’t miss the point. Sadly many do.

  2. “The same law applies in case Celdran summons the courage to invade the Quiapo Golden Mosque and call the ululating imams terrorists”

    Curiously, there are NO activists who have ever protested against the very real problems we have with Muslim extremism. Or the fact that there is a resurgence of fundamentalist, ultraconservative Wahhabi preaching in Southeast Asia. All promoted by Saudi sponsored madrasas.

    Meanwhile, Celdran and his ilk are fixated on dressing up in ridiculous outfits and parading around like idiots. If the Salafists had their way, his tongue would have been cut out.

  3. Oh, all right, I’ll bite.

    I’m not missing the point; I hold, rather firmly, that the point you are making is wrong, and serves, in practice, to repress the majority of the people in the vested interest of the elite.

    You are, in fact, being reactionary. You have the right to be reactionary, but in doing so you may find that others find the system that you seek to uphold to be less than admirable.

    Celdran was obviously making a gesture; his gesture was an act of political activism, the argument being, I take it, that if the Church of Rome interferes in the political process it interferes with the rights of non-Catholics and the yet more numerous occasionally-vaguely-Catholics then people whose rights are being thus interfered with can invade the space of the Church.

    Now, as a thought experiment, how do you feel about this celebrated invasion of a private space in British history?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_trespass_of_Kinder_Scout

    In both cases, the real intention was to get publicity and to make the Church / the landowners look heavy handed and stupid in the eyes of ordinary right thinking people.

    The Ramblers’ Association is now an incredibly respectable body – very much a part of the British body politic – and it has, over the past eighty years, won its argument – people do now have the right of access to areas of open country.

    Your example of an atheist being offended by someone practicing religion is rather a silly one – atheists are not offended by people practicing religion – they may be amused or saddened by it but they are hardly going to be offended – unless, of course, the religion involves human sacrifice, the burning or widows or child molestation, in which case most people, not just atheists, will be offended. Wherein lies the offence in someone praying to an imaginary creature or giving money to the self appointed bureaucracy who take it upon themselves to look after the imaginary creature?

    The converse, of course, does not apply – the religious are frequently offended by the irreligious, presumably because they feel their convictions threatened, to the point where they have often found it necessary to jail, torture and execute the irreligious.

    But I challenge you to find a case of atheists being offended by the practice of religion, outside the former Communist nations, where it was really a matter of one religion versus another.

    Should we not ask ourselves why the Philippines Penal Code still contains shuch extraordinary legal fossils as estafa, a crime so obscure outside the Spanish legal system that one struggles to find an English definition of it – the rest of the world gets along just fine with “obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception”), defamation (an offence which is considered a tort, not a crime, in the common law systems of the rest of the English speaking world) and indeed Article 133.

    Defamation is certainly wrong, but it is no business of the State to prosecute it – the person defamed has their remedy in the civil courts.

    There is no need for defamation to be a crime, and the besmirching of an individual’s character is no proper concern of the State beyond providing the means of redress through the courts. Making defamation a crime opens the door to any number of abuses perpetrated by the “haves” against the “have nots”. Is that really what you want?

    How does the Church of Rome get along in other countries, which have no Article 133? It seems to manage perfectly well, doesn’t it?

    1. By way of a footnote…

      One of the forms of estafa is, hilarously, Article 315 (2)(c):

      “By pretending to have bribed any Government employee, without prejudice to the action for calumny which the offended party* may deem proper to bring against the offender. In this case, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty.”

      It would be a defence to a prosecution under this section to show that one had, indeed, bribed a Goverment employee!

      Notice that the Government employee has a separate right to bring an action for calumny. That being so, what is the purpose of this section?

      This illustrates quite nicely the absurdity of the “estafa” section of the present Penal Code, and no doubt the same goes for the crimes of “calumny” and “offending religious feelings”!

      What this really tells us, of course, is gthat the Spanish colonial regime was so hopelessly mired in corruption that they needed every possible means of terrifying Juan de la Cruz, and their sucessors were no better, else they would have repealed it.

      * Notice that “the offended party” is undefined, we are left to assume that this is the un-bribed Government employee…

      1. This one(on the estafa point) is something I cannot disagree. Good spotting that one. BUT to relate it to the offense of FEELINGS in GENERAL, be it to the RELIGIOUS OR NOT is not the same as the very good point you said on estafa. So please do exemplify your point on the relativity of the two. Besides you did say the separation of Church and State. I suppose the specific provision you point on estafa is a state issue (talking about a government employee)but offense of religious feelings is not a state issue. Even the right to offend the irreligious is not a state issue(I would rather have keep that irrelevant) unless the religious are DOING SOMETHING UNREASONABLE as Celdran did.

        And to give the point down, DISRUPTION OF AN ACTIVITY WHICH are considered by those religious as something “sacred” is not offensive? Even without using Art.133, THAT IS OFFENSIVE! Sad for you atheists is that the Constitution is explicit on that via the Art.133. Does is protect religious institutions? It does, and it should be BUT I do understand what you really want. I can only say, you can revise the Article(probably for being vague and ask what is classified as “offensive to religious beliefs” that can be covered IN ORDER TO SERVE THE PURPOSE OF THE FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND EXERCISE. Other than that, I see no compromise, for now.

        1. @ Blue Streak – for the record, I’m not an atheist – I’m an Episcopalian, and my partner is an occasionally-vaguely-Catholic, whose feelings certainly were offended, pace Father Bernas, by the priest taking “Go forth and multiply” as his text during the simbang gabi!

          You are quite right – my serious point, already voiced by Chino F, is that the criminal law needs revision, both as regards section 133 and other matters, notably estafa and defamation.

          As regards s.133, it is not well drafted – what does “notoriously offensive” actually mean? – and like laws relating to blasphemy it needs to be very carefully worded to avoid silly results.

          Calling a priest a “Damaso” is not blasphemous – the accusation goes to the human character of the priest, not his religious character, and the Almighty may very well agree with the accusation, where it is justified.

          Is it “notoriously offensive” to call a priest a “Damaso”? Most people would say that it depends on the known character of the priest against whom the insult is hurled, surely?

      2. Same thing with the Philippines’ bank secrecy laws. They are an affront to transparency and do nothing to serve the average Pinoy, most of whom are not even aware that there is such a thing as a “dollar accounts”. The Philippines remains one of the few countries who maintain an archaic banking regime such as this. And yet our legislators have not moved an inch towards changing this.

        Perhaps the reason nobody is breathing down Congressmen’s necks or stomping their feet around in pseudo-indignation over the “archaic” bank secrecy laws of is because Carlos Celdran was not convicted of offenses relating to bank secrecy in this instance.

        No. The attention now is on that other “archaic” law — Article 133 of the RPC — because a popular clown is its current “victim”. That’s the trouble with using popular sentiment and popular “movements” rather than consistent frameworks to guide governance and officiation.

        If we have an issue with the quality of our laws, then look to those who have the power to change them AND the quality of the people who VOTE for them.

        As I said before, there are procedures one can employ to fix these systematically. That’s how things are done in modern societies.

        1. I agree entirely about the bank secrecy laws – and I expect that we will further agree that whilst, up to now, these laws have been used to shield corruption, they have now become a real and present danger to the nation itself.

          The Philippines is one of the last nations to retain bank secrecy laws – even Switzerland has given them over – and as such the Philippines has suddenly become very attractive to international organised crime and to terrorism.

          These laws are now not just a means for corrupt members of the elite to conceal their ill gotten gains, they are attracting serious international crime to the Philippines.

    2. Andrew, I think a few months ago there was a heated issue regarding a proposal to ban religious practices and displaying religious icons in government buildings. The atheist community in the Philippines was vocal in supporting Rep. Palatino who tried to push for the bill. I also had a few discussions with atheist friends of mine belonging to the Filipino Freethinkers. There certainly are atheists who are offended with religious practices, especially if they feel that such practices are performed in places where the separation of Church and State ought to be implemented. Are the atheists justified on feeling offended? Perhaps. But I don’t think we can deny that there are atheists who are offended with religious practices.

      Here in the United States, there seems to be issues raised by atheist groups all the time objecting to practice, display, or expressions of religious faith (particularly Judeo-Christianity). Every Christmas time there seems to be a “War on Christmas” being waged. The ones who objected to the display of the Ten Commandments in Court Rooms, schools, and other public buildings… the objections came primarily from atheist groups. There was even a case here in California when an atheist parent was offended because of the religious symbols worn by some teachers. Here’s more info about the case… http://www.kmph.com/story/20284555/atheist-parent-offended-school-district-calls-meeting-with-teachers Heck, the Council for Secular Humanism even raised a howl over Sec. Vilsack’s statement that he prays for rain so that the drought affected farmers can get a relief from the drought problem they have. (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/07/atheists-offended-by-ag-secretarys-praying-for-rain/1 )

      1. Hector – thank you for that. Like you, I have friends who are active in Filipino Freethinkers.

        I think you will agree with me that what the atheist community is offended by, in these cases – and I certainly agree with you that, in the States, the business of “being offended” has been taken much too far and has turned into a three ring circus – is not the practice of religion itself, but the intrusion of religious observances into Governmental functions in nations where the Constitution formally separates Church and State?

        In the States, but not, I think, in the Philippines (but I stand to be corrected here) there has been a steady push to get religion into the State’s sphere – the change in wording of the Pledge of Allegiance, the addition of “In God We Trust”, and so on, and, that being the case, we can see why the American freethinking community are so concerned.

        I think that one of Carlos Celdran’s points, as shown by his choice of costume, is that the Founding Fathers of the Philippine State, Jose Rizal and Marcelo del Pilar, were both robustly anticlerical, and their anticlericalism has fallen by the wayside. That may be a valid point – I cannot say – but certainly it would explain the strength of feeling of some of the freethinking community over the politicaal role of the Church of Rome in modern Philippines politics.

    3. I beg to disagree on the statement of atheist NOT being offended. Goodness me, I have seen cases filed by atheists for silly reasons because they were “OFFENDED”. By that I mean they want to mute religious exercise which is against freedom of religious practice(by any means). So I have to say, reality goes up against your statement. Second, the main intent of Art.133 is to to allow the exercise of religious practice and belief without UNDUE AND UNREASONABLE DISRUPTION, BE IT BY UNCIVILIZED “RANTS” OR BY DOING ACTUAL HARM, which ChinoF explains rather well, by any person or group to that particular religious group or institution. BTW your talk of the religious being offended by the irreligious is true BUT you cannot GENERALIZE ALL religions at once. Hence your complaint must be addressed on a case-to-case basis AND THERE IS NO LAW THAT RESTRICTS FOR THE RELIGIOUS RANTING OR “TO OFFENDED”(GIVEN IT IS NOT UNDUE AND HARMFUL) To atheism and atheist in general UNLESS atheism is an individual in which you can use defamation as a defense(which it isn’t)or a belief system that can be covered by Art.133 and provisions which allows the exercise of religious beliefs.(which it isn’t either)

      And to your challenge check this out.
      http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/2012/02/08/atheists-complain-air-force-responds-by-removing-god-from-logo/
      http://www.causes.com/actions/1728214-u-s-army-removes-christian-crosses-so-not-to-offend-muslims-and-atheists?ctm=more_from_cause

      And that is just a few of the many. Only your last statement which concerns on defamation clearly makes sense, so I’ll give you that merit.

      MATTER OF FACT
      Atheist are by FAR more reactive to criticisms than the religious if you ask me. By just checking YOUTUBE or the INTERNET(and other media)IN GENERAL TELLS ME THE IRRELIGIOUS/ATHEIST HAVE SO MANY PRIVILEGES TO EXERCISE THEIR “FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION”. The wrong use of it leads to IMPUNITY(if not punished)which Carlos Celdran deserves!

      1. It’s like the case of the Filipino in the US who was “offended” upon seeing a local having a car plate with the name “Kiki.” That’s what I mean.

    4. The Mass Trespass of Kinder Scout doesn’t compare, for me. The article you quoted itself says, “Trespass was not, and still is not, a criminal offence in any part of Britain.” But the ramblers who were arrested were on the basis of violence against the keepers. Here, trespassing a church is a violation of law. Or perhaps Celdran’s violation could be seen as “violence against other people’s security to their religios belief,” the best I could think of at the moment. And yes, I agree it is a moot point.

    5. @Andrew

      According to you –

      “Your example of an atheist being offended by someone practicing religion is rather a silly one – atheists are not offended by people practicing religion – they may be amused or saddened by it but they are hardly going to be offended – unless, of course, the religion involves human sacrifice, the burning or widows or child molestation, in which case most people, not just atheists, will be offended.”

      But how about this one –

      “Well-known atheist Christopher Hitchens, for example, says that religion “should be treated with ridicule, hatred, and contempt.” Hitchens is quick to point out of course that Christians themselves should not be treated this way; it’s Christianity he hates.”

      I can still give you some more.

      Problema lang, as if you’re speaking in behalf of all the atheists.

      1. I’m not actually any sort of atheist, but I don’t think the late Christopher Hitchens was being offended by the practice of religion; what offended him was religion itself – to quote Wikipedia (probably not a wise thing to do!) Hitchens contended that organised religion is “the main source of hatred in the world”, “violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children”, and that accordingly it “ought to have a great deal on its conscience”.

        1. @Andrew

          So when this Hitchens says –

          “it’s Christianity he hates.”

          he is not offended by Christianity. He just hates it.

          He continues –

          “It is entirely appropriate to ridicule absurd ideas rather than to treat them as serious and give them respect. Only serious ideas based on reason and evidence are worthy of intellectual respect. The ideas that we critique and ridicule have historically led to or facilitated war, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. They have enslaved millions, impeded medical and scientific research and are now draining vast sums of taxpayer dollars to propagate more of these ridiculous ideas.

          These ideas have resulted in untold amounts of violence, death, torture, and suffering as well as the profound intimidation and physical molestation of our young. Ridicule and even sneering condescension are about the mildest critical reactions that we can have for the enormity of the mind-boggling injustices perpetrated in their name. I can readily empathize with those of us who consider the behaviors prompted by these dogma to be illegal and criminal.”

          Pick anything from his comment and I hope to put up a rejoinder.

          Just don’t tell us atheists are not offended by people practicing religion.

          I’m telling you, I’ve a lot more that will interest you.

    1. @jcc

      “a cacophoy of discordant voices.”

      Cacophony definition is –

      “The use of harsh or discordant sounds in literary composition, as for poetic effect.”

      Disjunctive or disconjunctive?

      You really want to impress us with your acrobatics with English words/phrases heh…

      To the point of overdoing it…

  4. So,GRP is not about to give up on this Celdran circus? Clearly to me, Celdran is a victim of an ancient law which in this day and age should not even be considered applicable. If I were Celdran, I would not even hear this stupid church instituted law.

    Offense against religious practice goes back to the ancient Sumerian civilization. It was instituted by the Sumerians as a way of conflict resolution and the law is at its heart “revenge”. This was the basic cultural mechanism for dealing with “unacceptable” behavior, to exact retribution. In this day and age, what Celdran did was akin to protesting increased school tuition fees. Should Celdran be punished for an act equivalent to protesting high cost of food or increased tuition fees? I don’t think so.

    1. Thanks for the Sumerian history – this issue goes back further than I thought!

      I agree that what Celdran did was about on the level of arguing over tuition fees.

    2. So you equate that this piece of Sumerian history is in parallel with what is happening now. I can only say that is a weak charge to ALL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS but I think I do get what you are saying on this one.

    3. Last one, on my part, I hope, but I may mention Celdran’s case in future articles. Nothing stopping that if the issue is related.

      Just wait if the DOJ has removed Art. 133 from its proposed new criminal code.

  5. “If we criticize the government and others, we do so in our own space and without any need to invade anyone else’s privacy, or without destroying someone’s life or an institution’s reputation. Basically, the lesson here is, you may have the right intention, but the way you do it matters. The end does not justify the means.”

    Or let’s put it this way:

    If we’re going to celebrate our religious beliefs, feast, rituals, dogmas etc. “we do so in our own space and without any need to invade anyone else’s privacy, or without destroying someone’s life or an institution’s reputation”

    Keep the religious rites inside the religious’ space and not on public space. i.e
    the Black Nazarene Feast:

    “own space and without any need to invade anyone else’s privacy” – Traffic, time wasted on rerouting, class suspensions, business affected.

    “or without destroying someone’s life” – Accidents and even death (like Pagoda Tragedy)

    “or an institution’s reputation” – Government must remain secular. free from any religious influence.

    Garbage collection, security, and health hazard. Who pays for the bills?
    Our irreligious’ rights were violated and we’re offended. Keep the dogmas inside the religious space(including the bills).

    1. @Louie,

      “If we’re going to celebrate our religious beliefs, feast, rituals, dogmas etc. “we do so in our own space and without any need to invade anyone else’s privacy, or without destroying someone’s life or an institution’s reputation””

      The problem is that we are in a democratic form of government. Majority rules. Majority of Filipinos are Catholics. It’s not the question of whether this majority is right or wrong in showing their devotion.

      Why is it that in our townhomes we don’t have feast to celebrate? We don’t have this procession or whatever religious rites that will involve the use of others’ space.

      We feel we don’t have to do them. Nobody from the Church is compelling us.

      And why do we have this traffic jam every time Pacquiao arrives home after his fight or this Manila Film Festival parade?

      They’re ok and religious rites are not ok?

  6. My point about how to handle the Church is the same as my point in my other article about Donald Trump Jr.: if you don’t like that person’s opinion, give them the cold shoulder.

    Also, the claim that the Catholic Church is a major obstruction to real progress in the Philippines is arguable at this point. Perhaps you give them too much credit. Yes, there may have been instances of corruption, like those SUVs from PCSO. But to blame everything on the Catholic Church… honestly, it’s better to just give them the Cold Shoulder. Isn’t that what President BSA did with the RH Bill?

    1. @ ChinoF

      Your article raises two questions. The “legal and the moral” aspects regarding the Catholic church’s case against Celdran. The core of your question are the words “right” or “right to”, which in essence are legal terms. You chose to argue the “legal” aspect of the case citing that the Catholic church was correct in taking this clown Celdran to court based on Art.133 of the law.

      The Catholic church could have chosen the “moral” side and resolved the issue on day one, but they chose to be unforgiving. I think both parties are losers in this game and at the end of the day media is smiling on their way to the bank.

      1. You may be right. I do see however that Celdran’s action was needless if one wants the Church to decline, and it may already be doing so.

    2. Up to a point, Lord Copper!

      Certainly the Church of Rome is not the only speed bump on the road to progress, but its hostility to contraception, its hostility to divorce, its hostility to abortion and its persistent attempts to play politics, usually in alignment with other forces of reaction, certainly don’t help the nation to join the 21st century!

      Taking divorce, as we all know the Philippines is now unique amongst nations in having no divorce laws – and the practical consequences of this are not that husbands and wives stay together, but that the rich get annulments and the poor choose not to marry in the first place. This is not a recipe for a stable society!

      1. How much of a bump the Catholic Church is is anything is more dependent on the personal conduct of its members more than anything else.

  7. While there is much to criticize about the Roman Catholic Celdarn’s action where too much. While one is able to criticize someone, one must respect the targets dignity. As a result Celdran was the one looking like a villain.

    But I wonder about one thing why do people who criticize Christianity and Christians in general don’t have the guts to criticize religions that blatant flaws (Islam for example)? Maybe these people do like to pick on faiths that do not vindictive and painful retribution on those that offend it.

    1. There is no end to this. On one hand it is the protest against the secular culture which has infested the Philippine psyche and on the other, it’s breaking the law to prevent a riot over ‘religious feelings’.

      Because of that Damaso stunt, some moron will probably emulate Celdran in a Mosque because that same idiot believes that Islam’s interferes/influence the State’s penal laws/Separation of Church and state. Way to go Celdran, your boorishness says a lot more about you than your RH beliefs.

      1. Yeah… actually come to think of it… the government allows Shariah Law in Mindanao. Doesn’t that show favor to a specific religion? (In that case, Islam.) I wonder what will happen to Celdran had he pulled that stunt in a Mosque?

        1. I said this at the start:

          “The same law applies in case Celdran summons the courage to invade the Quiapo Golden Mosque and call the ululating imams terrorists”

          Curiously, there are NO activists who have ever protested against the very real problems we have with Muslim extremism. Or the fact that there is a resurgence of fundamentalist, ultraconservative Wahhabi preaching in Southeast Asia. All promoted by Saudi sponsored madrasas.

          Meanwhile, Celdran and his ilk are fixated on dressing up in ridiculous outfits and parading around like idiots. If the Salafists had their way, his tongue would have been cut out.

  8. There is a clarification I need to make.

    I said above that the Church was not prosecuting Celdran. I was right.

    According to Ricardo Saludo: “Manila Archdiocese communications chief Peachy Yamsuan further noted that then Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales instructed that no case be filed against Celdran over his unfurling of a ‘Damaso’ placard during the cathedral service with other Christian denominations… Nor did the Church provide witnesses or testimony in the case filed and prosecuted by the government. So Celdran sympathizers should direct their calls for leniency and mercy to Malacañang.”
    (side note: Mrs. Yamsuan used to be my editor in Family Today magazine)

    Celdran himself confirms that it was not the church, but some Catholic lay people, who pursued the Art. 133 case against him.

    1. …just a prosecution brought privately by some Catholic lay people, just like the Supreme Court case against the RH Law…

      …as in “Will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest?” – the words notoriously uttered by King Henry II of England, which were interpreted by four of his knights as a command to kill the Archbishop of Canterbury – which they did, on the 29th December 1170 … murdering an Archbishop, in hs own cathedral, during Vespers, really was a case of for Article 133 “…anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.” …

      1. That’s why the outrage on Celdran’s imprisonment shouldn’t be directed against the Church. These days, most “religious zealots” are among the ordinary people.

  9. just my 2 cents:
    may mga nagtatanong dito kung notoriously offensive ba yung ginawa ni celdran and what does “notoriously offensive” actually mean?
    tapos may magsasabi na “calling a priest a “Damaso” is not blasphemous – the accusation goes to the human character of the priest, not his religious character, and the Almighty may very well agree with the accusation, where it is justified.
    Is it “notoriously offensive” to call a priest a “Damaso”? Most people would say that it depends on the known character of the priest against whom the insult is hurled, surely?”

    notoriously offensive ba yung ginawa? art 133. KAYA NGA PO TAYO MAY MGA KORTE DIBA? PARA IINTERPRET YUNG LAW. KAYA SANA WAG NA TAYO GUMAWA NG MGA CONCLUSION KUNG NOTORIOUSLY OFFENSIVE BA O HINDI. NAKITA NG KORTE NA OO, IRESPETO NATIN YUN. SASABHIN NATIN NA HND TAPOS HINDI RIN NATIN ALAM KUNG ANO BA YUNG EXTENT NG NOTORIOUSLY OFFENSIVE? KAYA NGA PO MAY KORTE PARA MAG DECIDE DIBA? HINTAYIN NALANG NATIN YUNG UPPER COURT. GANYAN DIN DAPAT GAWIN NI CARLOS CELDRAN AT NG IBA NA KUMWEKWESTYON SA INTERPRETASYON NG KORTE KUNG NOTORIOUSLY OFFENSIVE BA O HINDI. KESA PO WHINE WHINE AT SINASABI NATIN NA MALI. MERON PA NAMANG HIGHER COURTS. YUNG YUNG TRABAHO NG KORTE DIBA? IINTERPRET YUNG BATAS. ALISIN NALANG KAYA NATIN YUNG KORTE KUNG GAGAWA TAYO NG SARILI NATING INTERPRETASYON AND AT THE SAME TIME NACOCONFUSED DIN KUNG ANO BA TALAGA YANG NOTORIOUSLY OFFENDED NA YAN. 🙂

  10. “Ang taong hindi marunong gumalang sa nakakatanda ay higit pa sa malansang isda.” Strip away the biases and labels. What Damaso-guy did was wrong. Why? What monstrous evil did these elderly men do to deserve such public insult? For all we know, they have all good intentions to better our country and our people. They may be wrong; it might not be for our good. But their intentions are certainly not to harm us. … Tapos here come the lawyers who go all the way (even to argue until whatever Constitution, Article, Archaic blah-blah) to defend a guy who does not respect his elders. And the minions follow suit. What will become of our society? Because of certain “groups” because of certain “ideologies” , “cliques” we now forgo the protection of the innocent and the weak.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.