Afterlife

I find it amusing how people who believe in an afterlife seriously believe in the existence of hell and are terribly afraid of making the fatal mistake that would send them to that damned place, and yet they always assume that their departed loved ones automatically go to heaven and are now looking down on them. At least that was what I was told as a kid - that people go to heaven when they die, no exceptions. I used to be creeped out thinking how my great-grandmother and great-grandfather can and do see my every move (even when I hide under a table, or a blanket, or when I turn off the lights). Creepy, but that's what an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god supposedly does, and he allegedly listens to our thoughts too, though I don't see the point of constant monitoring when you already know what's going to happen.

Though I'm now convinced that there isn't an afterlife, I still go to the cemetery, usually on or soon after All Saints' Day, when faithful Filipinos flock to the graves of their deceased friends and relatives (a surreal blend of Catholicism and ancestor worship), but I do it mainly to make sure that my relatives' graves aren't being desecrated (I once caught people placing objects over my great-grandfather's grave marker). Call it sentimentality, but even when I am aware that dead people are not even capable of minding what goes on at their burial sites, I am squeamish about vandalizing gravestones and other memorials. We were all brought into this world without our consent, and the least we could do for everyone is to is give them the right to leave it in peace and with dignity. And graves are part of the send-off that we give to the departed. Whatever way they leave, they were, after all, part of our lives, part of our world.

I want to spare my family from stressful trips to the graveyard, so I am seriously considering alternatives to burial such as cremation, aquamation, even donating my body to science. It pays to plan ahead, before the loss of consciousness and the powerlessness that comes with non-existence sets in. Whatever way this body gives up its autonomy and ultimately returns its raw materials to the environment, it comforts me to think that it would make way for future generations to experience the universe and all its majesty (because as far as we know, the environment can only sustain a limited number of people). To be memorialized is a nice bonus and is probably the closest we would ever get to immortality. The irony is that we wouldn't even be aware of it as it happens.

Religion: None

"What is your religion?" asked the lady who was taking my details at a government office a few days ago.

Despite the strong temptation to go "Haroo! Haroo!" I said "None."

The man queuing behind me snickered. He must have thought I was an ignoramus and didn't know what the word meant and that I was supposed to have one. Guess what. I know exactly what religion is and have a pretty good idea of how it works, more than enough to make an informed decision not to have one.

The lady might have thought I was pulling a joke on her and studied me for a while as I kept a straight face. I was dead serious that I didn't have a religion. She tried again.

"Are you Catholic?"

"No," I said.

She looked at me like I just claimed to have been born in Mars. Or more like I just said that I eat humans and that I thought she looked very lean. She handed me back my form and told me to proceed to the next queue.

I got my needed government papers and left the place contemplating that if people are unaware of the existence of atheists and agnostics, then we sure have a long, long way to go. It is more likely that people are aware of atheists but unaware that atheism is not a religion, but that still means there is a huge amount of catching up to do in terms of education.

Ignorance breeds hatred, therefore it pays to know about different people. Especially when one lives in a country that is a melting pot of cultures. This may be a country where atheists are very outnumbered by religious people, but we atheists do exist and if one listens carefully enough, they would realize that we do have a voice.

I dare say that there are far more atheists in this country than those who are openly admitting their atheism, because I, even after becoming atheist, kept saying for a while that I was Catholic since I didn't formally resign from Roman Catholicism. I didn't always get the chance to explain that I am only a nominal Catholic and have long ceased to be convinced of Catholic doctrine, and people just love shortcuts, so they always assumed that I was religious. I grew tired of that, and I went from saying "I am Catholic, but..." to "I am not religious, but I'm technically a Catholic" (which is a little better, but as people love shortcuts, only the "Catholic" part stuck) to "I am atheist and I have no religion."

There are people who, for various reasons, are kept from being open about certain things, whether it's about their religious beliefs, political opinions, or sexuality, among others. We, the marginalized, the outnumbered, have reasonable wants and needs that cannot be catered to by society and the state if we do not take it upon ourselves to speak up and make our opinion count. We have a voice - we have to use it, and we have to use it well. We have a voice - we have to use it, and we have to use it well. It's about time that atheists make themselves heard.

Please do not pray for Manila

In light of recent events involving a crazy amount of rainfall within 24 hours, massive flooding, and landslides, I appeal to everyone to please stop all this nonsense about God being angry over the reproductive health bill.

And don't even start on that Genesis 8:7-12 nonsense. I wonder why it wasn't Revelation 8:7-12 that they thought of when the flood waters came rushing in:
The first Angel sounded, and there followed haile, and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast vpon the earth, and the third part of trees was burnt vp, and all greene grasse was burnt vp.
And the second Angel sounded, and as it were a great mountaine burning with fire was cast into the sea, and the third part of the sea became blood.
And the thirde part of the creatures which were in the Sea, and had life, died, and the third part of the ships were destroyed.
And the third Angel sounded, and there fell a great starre from heauen, burning as it were a lampe, and it fell vpon the third part of the riuers, and vpon the fountaines of waters:
And the name of the starre is called Wormewood, and the third part of the waters became wormewood, and many men dyed of the waters, because they were made bitter.
And the fourth Angel sounded, and the thirde part of the Sunne was smitten, & the third part of the Moone, and the third part of the starres, so as the third part of them was darkened: and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.

Please do not pray for Manila. We should know by now that it wouldn't do anything. Please help Manila and the rest of the affected cities instead, either by donating to the Red Cross and other agencies, by coming over to assist the rescue and relief efforts, by helping spread the word to people who may be of help, or by informing authorities if you know of stranded people who are in urgent need to be rescued. Thank you.

Beware of voices inside your head

It doesn't have to be a little voice. It could be a big voice. A loud voice. Or a soft voice. It doesn't even have to be you who hears it. It could be something that someone told you that was spoken to him by a voice inside his head. Or something he saw by reading the spots on a damp wall, or a burnt toast, or the apparent patterns of the stars in the sky. Or something you read in a book written by someone who heard voices in his head and saw drug-induced apocalyptic visions. The point is, as long as something can be traced to voices in one's head, or visions or personal "revelations" - beware. These things are not as harmless as they seem.

I suppose I am not the only one who is absolutely disgusted by this news: A poor five-year-old Mexican boy had his eyes ritualistically gouged out by his own mother "to prevent an earthquake and save the world". Drugs were involved. Connect the dots. It is the story of Abraham's near-sacrifice of his own son Isaac all over again. Except, this time, the boy was physically harmed before intervention came.

I could imagine the ritual to be a lot like this:

And they came to the place which God had tolde him of, and Abraham built an Altar there, and layd the wood in order, and bound Isaac his sonne, and layde him on the Altar vpon the wood.

And Abraham stretched foorth his hand, and tooke the knife to slay his sonne.

Isaac had a narrow escape when God stopped Abraham at the last minute, and Abraham found a ram to offer instead:

And the Angel of the LORD called vnto him out of heauen, and said, Abraham, Abraham. And he said, Here am I.

And he said, Lay not thine hand vpon the lad, neither do thou any thing vnto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withhelde thy sonne, thine onely sonne from mee.

And Abraham lifted vp his eyes, and looked, and beholde, behinde him a Ramme caught in a thicket by his hornes: And Abraham went and tooke the Ramme, and offered him vp for a burnt offering, in the stead of his sonne.

The poor Mexican boy wasn't as lucky as Isaac, but I am pretty sure that both boys were more or less equally traumatized. And I hope that people would be reminded of this and other incidents like this and be disgusted all over again every time they try to talk to those guys who they think can hear everything they say wherever they are. Because, really, there are far worse things that those voices and visions can do than take someone's eyes out.

Gay marriages: Why not?

As much as I admire Manny Pacquiao for his achievements as an athlete, I am very disappointed with his recent comments regarding gay marriage: "I'm not against the gay people. I'm not condemning them. ... I have a cousin (who is) gay. I have relatives (who are) gay. I have a lot of friends (who are) gay, so I'm not condemning gays. What I said is I'm not in favor of same-sex marriage. ..."

He had just contradicted himself. If he doesn't condemn gay people, and doesn't hate them at all, then why does he not want them to practice the very thing that sets them apart from so-called "straight" people? Why is he in favor of discrimination against unions that happen to be between people of the same sex? Or is he in favor of same-sex relationships, just as long as they do not legally marry? If that is the case, it is very puzzling indeed.

What's worse than this apparent hypocrisy is that the reason behind his anti-gay marriage stance is "It's the law of God." Which leads me to ask, which god, and why? Of course, he was pertaining to the Roman Catholic god, and if his reason for preferring this god over Allah (or Brahma, or Buddha, or Osiris) is simply because it happens to be "his" god, as well as the god of the majority of his country, then he, again, is guilty of discrimination, this time against people of other religions.

If he has friends and relatives who are gay, then why does he not understand that homosexuality is not inherently a bad thing (otherwise, why would he be against same-sex marriages)?

Pacquiao, as well as other politicians (yes, he's a politician, representing Sarangani province in the Philippines' House of Representatives), has to stop citing religion as a reason why same-sex marriages should not be allowed, because there are different religions in the world, and even if some of their beliefs overlap, they generally believe in different things - mutually incompatible things. Even people from different Christian religions disagree whether homosexuality is a bad thing. Also, in Amerindian culture, there were women who decided to live as men took other women as their wives. Obviously, these Amerindian women were permitted by their culture and their religion (why else would they be allowed to hunt and go to war with the men?). Pacquiao may invoke his right to freedom of religion. Walter Wink may also invoke his right to freedom of religion, but he has a different interpretation of the Bible from Pacquiao and the Catholics' interpretation. There are people who don't practice any religion, and it is also their right not to do so. Whose rights are we going to uphold then?

There are people who may argue that same-sex relationships are "unnatural," that men are not "meant" to have sex with other men, and that is why there are two sexes anyway. At first glance, it may seem a sound argument. But we are also not "meant" to cut open the body of a brain dead person and transfer its still functional vital organs to another body. We are not "meant" to grow some cancer cells outside of a living body so that we may learn more about how to prevent them from becoming too numerous inside of us. We cannot equate "unnatural" to "bad." There are "good" "unnatural" things such as life-saving surgery, and "bad" "unnatural" things like environmental pollution due to anthropogenic activity.

Assuming that "unnatural" is equal to "bad," we only have to demonstrate that homosexual behaviors occur in the "natural" world (meaning in non-human animals and/or plants), and the argument that homosexuality is "unnatural" and therefore "bad" is thrown out the window.

What appears to be abnormal about homosexual behavior is that it is not conducive to procreation. However, there is more to relationships than reproduction. There is also companionship. There is also the benefit of splitting household bills. There is also sex for the sake of sex. We can consider these things as mating rituals, and they are a by-product of procreative mechanisms of course, but is it necessarily bad to have a relationship and not have babies? Is it bad to have sex just because it is fun? If sex is only for the "perpetuation of the species," and if we really think about the good of our species, then shouldn't we ban sex for a few years until our population reduces to a healthier level? No, no, no, and no. We keep having sex but we take precautions against unplanned pregnancies as well as excruciating diseases. It is entirely possible to control our population without missing out on the non-procreative benefits of sex.

Another argument against same-sex marriage is that it is "immoral." Everyone has different opinions on what "moral" means, but fortunately, science can tell us whether something is "reasonable" or not. And science tells us that homosexuality is not maladaptive and is not indicative of mental and developmental problems, and that homosexual relationships can be just as stable and committed as heterosexual relationships. It also tells us that children raised by homosexual couples function just as well as children raised by heterosexual couples. Just like heterosexual relationships, homosexual relationships may be bad or good, therefore the success of a relationship has nothing to do with whether the people involved are of the same sex or opposite sex. There really is no sensible reason why homosexual and heterosexual unions should not be treated equally by legal systems.