” Jesus who?”

 

If you entered a Christian chat room or if you engage a talk to any Christian fundy, the first thing he will do is to make sure you accept Jesus as your personal Savior.
Jesus who?
Oh, come on you gotta be kidding me.

Most of the readers may think that I am fooling around if I say that I do not really know whom this Jesus H. Christ is. In the first place, this Jesus is so popular like the Marlboro Man and the Beatles, it is quite impossible to say that you do not know who this Jesus is.
N. Geisler even wrote some chapters on his fundy book, “When Skeptics Ask” devoted to this Jesus character and even compares Jesus to other religious or philosophical people. Therefore, this Jesus person is that important huh. Talk about being a big shot!

Most Christians that I have chat in the internet asked me what is it like to live without Jesus H. Christ in my life and they always insisted that Have I felt Jesus have already done something special in my life; Now here’s my answer, NOTHING, NADA, ZIP and lots of it. That statement can really piss off any Christian.

And to top it all, Christians still insist that he is a god. So how can I say something like that? Maybe Christians who are reading my blog might say that I’m just being unfair, bias and they will never tolerate anybody that trash talks their Savior.
Oh come on, I’m just saying facts here.

So you think Jesus is really that important huh? OK…let’s talk about it. Let’s talk about Jezzez Rice!

HERE’S THE FACTS! This Jesus fellow never really contributed much to society in general. On the whole, Jesus said little that was worthwhile. He introduced nothing new to ethics (except hell). He instituted no social programs. Being a god, he is supposed to be “omniscient,” he could have shared some useful technology or medicine to the Hebrews, yet he appeared ignorant of such things. Let’s put this statement in a more specific manner.

According to Christian legend, Jesus was born in the time when Palestine was under the rule of Rome. In those times, slavery prevails and very common. I was just wondering. What did Jesus say or did to abolished slavery? What’s worst, Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves. (Luke 12:47). He never denounced servitude, but quite the contrary, incorporated the master-slave relationship into many of his parables. Also, what did Jesus did to bring about something in the issue of International Relation. Surely, Christian says that Jesus was God, so is it impossible for a god to talk to Roman authorities and knock some senses in their heads? Well, today the United Nations is capable of putting conquering states at bay. I wonder why a god could not accomplish this feat.

Jesus did nothing to alleviate poverty. Rather than sell some expensive ointment to help the poor, Jesus wasted it on himself, saying, “Ye have the poor with you always” (Mark 14:3-7).

Does Jesus do something to champion woman emancipation, women’s right and intolerance toward other culture? No women were chosen as his apostles or invited to the Last Supper. In Mark 7:27 (”But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. “). Imagine! Jesus equated non-Jews with dogs. It looks like Jesus teaches intolerance towards other religion and culture. Now just imagine what kind of a person will instruct his followers to kill in front of him those who don’t want him to be king ( Luke 19:27). By relating this incident, Jesus is implicitly condoning executions!

Christian believers say that Jesus turn water into wine, have healed the sick and resurrected the dead. Wow! Great feats of miracles! But when did this god-man turned health contagious? Did Jesus eradicate leprosy? Scientists, which are not gods, have eradicated small pox. So what disease did this god-man have wipe out when he was on earth? What he taught to his disciples was that sickness were caused by demons possessing our body or you need God’s forgiveness to be cure of your illness instead of teaching people that diseases are cause by tiny life forms called “germs”, and proper hygiene can lessen the chances of having a disease. Christians say that Jesus made the blind to see and the lame to walk again. Have he taught the Hebrews how to cure polio or glaucoma? Have he taught the Israelites how to cure different ailments using simple medicinal herbs? How about teaching the Hebrews of turning dirty desert water into drinkable table water or a new agricultural technology that will make fig trees bear fruits even if it’s not fig season? All I have read so far in the Gospel is that Jesus knows how to curse fig trees. Does short time miracles really the only solution this god-man knows?

Now for Christians, Jesus is the sacrifice God use to take away the sins of the world. Hmmmm.. According to Jewish belief, you need to kill an animal to serve as a burnt offering for your sins. Does this mean Jesus is as good as a sacrificial goat? Beside, after Jesus is offer as a sacrifice like a temple animal to please God wrath to humanity, still sin is around every corner. Nothing really changed that much.

Christians will tell you that Jesus was send to us so we may have everlasting life. That is why it is very important to know Jesus. Yet the same Bible said to us that, “As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away: so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more” - JOB 7:9 and “Man’s fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal….all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?” - Eccle. 3:19-21 NIV.

You will have a perfect idea about Jesus’ credibility after reading most of his self- prophesies concerning his eminent return or second-coming as Christians called it. In Matthew 24:27-34 Jesus gave his disciples a complete picture of his return. According to Jesus “…This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled”. Now, when Jesus spoke of this prophesy, he was talking to his disciples, right. Therefore, when he said “this generation” he was not speaking of generation circa 2006. He was speaking of their generation! Jesus strongly stated this prophecy would be fulfilling in the lifetime of his generation. Now, nearly 2,000 years have passed still no sign of his second coming. Used primarily to frighten the wits of Christians into compliance, this prophecy now exposes a gigantic falsehood. The Son of man has not come as he predicted. Generation after generation has passed away and the prophet of Nazareth stands convicted as an imposter. It is more specific than most predictions and so provides a good test of the reality of Christ’s pretenses.
Again by flipping the pages of the New Testament we see JOHN 5:25 (”I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live….”). Another false prophecy by Jesus! “And now is” shows that this was to occur at that time. (Also see: MATT. 16:18, Matt. 10:23, Mark 9:1) Christian apologetic attempts to apply the word “generation” to the Jewish people and that Jesus was speaking about the “last days” on those other chapters and verses. However, modern scholars said that this “prophecy” is said to happened about 80-90 CE.
In Mark 14:62, Jesus told the chief priests, “ Ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand power and coming in the clouds of heaven”. Yet the chief priests have been dead for 2000 years or more, never lived to see Jesus coming from the cloud of heaven.

Now in a last ditch effort, a Christian might try to convince me about Jesus based on his moral teachings. According to Mr. Norman Geisler, Jesus moral was superior compare to Buddha, Lao Tse and Socrates. A certain person even tried to persuade me on liking this Jesus character because he claims Jesus taught us the Golden Rule. But Whoa! Wait a minute there. The Golden Rule is a universal rule and people like Confucius have already taught us that rule 3000 years before Jesus. But does Jesus really have a superior moral standard?
1. “While he was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him; so he went in and sat at table. The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not at first wash before dinner. And the Lord said to him, `Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of extortion and wickedness. You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also?…woe to you Pharisees! for you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God; these you ought to have done…’” (Luke 11:37-44 RSV).
Now this is an example of blatant rudeness! Imagine talking like this to someone in his house after he invited you to dine with him. Even if it were true, common decency dictated a more refined approach.

2. “So the devils besought him saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine. And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out they went into the herd of swine; and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters” (Matt. 8:31.32).
What had the owner or owners done to have their property destroyed by Jesus? What had the animals done to deserve such treatment? What happened to animal rights huh?
3. “Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. And they that were sent went their way, and found even as he had said unto them. And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt?” (Luke 19:30-33).
Are we to believe this isn’t stealing? Imagine seeing an unfamiliar person driving your car away while claiming the lord needed it.
4. “Verily, I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecution, and in the world to come eternal life” (Mark 10:29-30).
This teaching is not only immoral, but erroneous as well. Jesus is saying that the reward for giving up your wealth and following him is far greater wealth; So that means people should do right in order to obtain personal gain, not because it is the right act to do. Self-aggrandizement is not a decent basis for morality.
5. “Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees which were of Jerusalem, saying, `Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.’ But he answered and said unto them, `Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?’” (Matt. 15:1-3).
The statement “Why do ye also” is admittance by Jesus that his disciples were violating a commandment of God. He doesn’t deny they are breaking God’s law; he simply says that his critics are guilty of the same offense.
6. “then shall he say unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat;…” (Matt. 25:41-42) and “when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee hencefoward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away” (Matt. 21:18-19).

Here Jesus failed to show the mercy his believers claim he has. An eternal curse resulting from disappointed hunger is hardly the reaction of a divinely merciful being equal to God. Killing a tree for lacking fruit isn’t indicative of a reasonably merciful and composed individual.

7. “the Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, `Behold, a glutton and a drundard…” (Luke 7:34 RSV).
If this comment is true, and there is little evidence to the contrary, Jesus’ character is, indeed, substandard.

8. “There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my sake, and the gospel’s, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands…” (Mark 10:29-30).

Promising one’s followers immense riches is actually a form of bribery.

9. “So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:33) and “Jesus said unto him, `If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me’” (Matt. 19:21) and (Mark 10:21, Luke 3:11, 11:41, 12:35, 18:22) yet on Mark 2:15 it is said that “And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house”. Jesus has a house while telling others to surrender their wealth.

10. Jesus said, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true” (John 5:31) and later stated, “I am one that bear witness of myself…” (John 8:18). The logical conclusion to be drawn from combining these two statements is that Jesus disproved his own honesty.

11. Jesus told us to “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you” but ignored his own advice by repeatedly denouncing his opposition. Matt. 23:17 (”Ye fools and blind”), Matt. 12:34 (”O generation of vipers”), and Matt. 23:17 (”…hypocrites…ye are like unto whited sepulchers….”) These are excellent examples of hypocrisy.

12. “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). “I am come to set man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household” (Matt. 10:35-36). When one of his disciples requested time off for his father’s funeral, Jesus rebuked him by saying “Let the dead bury their dead” (Matt. 8:22). Jesus never used the word “family” and he never married or fathered children. To his own mother, he said, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” (John 2:4).

So what kind of family value does this Jesus taught us?

13. Jesus said that whoever calls somebody a “fool” shall be in danger of hell fire (Matt. 5:22), yet he called people “fools” himself (Matt. 23:17).

14. He appeared to suffer from a dictator’s “paranoia” when he said, “He that is not with me is against me” (Matt. 12:30).

And here are some more of Jesus so called “superior moral teaching”.
• Marrying a divorced woman is adultery (Matt. 5:32).
• Don’t plan for the future (Matt. 6:34)
• Don’t work to obtain food (John 6:27)
• Don’t save money (Matt. 6:19-20)
• Take the money from those who have no savings and give it to rich investors (Luke 19:23-26)
• If someone asks you for anything, give it to them without question (Matt. 5:42)
• If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment (Matt. 5:40)

(Source: Biblical Errancy by Dennis McKinsey)

So when a Christian told me things about Jesus, and by comparing what history and Biblical mythology have to say about this person, I always ask the Christian back, “Jesus who?”

Di na ba kayo nagsawa???

Hay my papaya! Maybe instead of talking about how to de-stabilied our govenment. Maybe Mrs. Aquino should get a shovel and help dig up the victims in Southern Leyte.

Come on Mrs. Aquino, you have your chance in govenment and you blew it. Nagsawa rin po kami sa brown out no!

Just Like Rabbits

It was just fortunate for me to be invited by Sunnyday (a friend) to attend a razzmatazz sponsored by Pro-Life Philippines in St. Peter’s Parish in Fairview, Quezon City on February 15, 2006. I went there hoping to be enlightened about the issues on abortion, instead what I saw was an exciting and complex play intended to confuse (dazzle) the public.

 
I was surprise that the whole shebang was not even a dialogue but a propaganda-like rants run by the Roman Catholic church  to stop artificial birth control method and family planning. AY NAKU PO! Not again! There are even some foreign guess (I think from Canada) that talk about Philippine poverty must not be blame on population growth. Now here we have aliens from another land who now in a mere instance know what is best for the Filipino society. MY PAPAYA!

 
Fortunately I found some distributed literatures which I seem to think what this show is all about.  The article seems to be a letter intended to be given to Philippine Congress and it is urging our respective Congressmen not to support some bills regarding:

• The Reproductive Health Bill
• Anti-Discrimination Act
• Integrated Population Management and Development Bill
• Divorce Bill
• Patients Rights Bill
• Anti-Terrorism Bill (?)
• Philippine Mining Act

 
And even the issue on Charter Change (?) wait a minute there…I thought this is about the life of a child, why are we dancing the cha-cha in here?

 
Now since this is a “Pro-Life” issue, I will just tackle the issue concerning Pro-Life. I’ll leave the issue about the Anti-Terrorism and Philippine Mining Act in a more “political” atmosphere.

 
According to this article they claim that the cause of poverty is not over population and the solution is not the use of contraceptives. Guess again? Well for your information, over-population is one of the causes of poverty and these entertainers are just keeping a close eye on the issue. Well some may set China as an example to justify over-population but let us examine the claim: We know that China is a very large country by territory compares to the itsy-bitsy group of islands called the Philippines so what’s the problem? Even with a billion population, China can still manage their resources and their per capital income, compare to the Philippines. But why go to China if we can talk about reality in our own backyard. 

 
Now the clamors in the issue about the Reproductive Health Bill are not even realistic. Maybe if we’re still living in the time of President Marcos, there is an issue, but today President Arroyo seems too hesitant to enforce the bill. Takot kasi si Ma’am sa simbahan. Now, do you know that the City of Manila doesn’t allow their health centers to distribute free condoms and pills? Mayor Atienza is too Pro-Church. The only two instances I know about government defying the Catholic Church were Senator Juan Flavier and the City of Davao. Maybe Mayor Duterte just has a lot of guts and is more concern with the welfare of the Davaoeños.

 
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m anti-abortion but I’m not anti-contraceptives. In abortion, we are terminating life, but in contraceptive we are just preventing fertilization to occur. Now, if you say that is immoral, think about this, there are thousand sperm cells that leave a male body during coition. In that thousand sperm cells, only one is needed to fertilized the egg cell. Now do you consider it murder on what happened on the other unused sperm? It just doesn’t make sense, here the Roman Catholics are into the sacredness of the sperm cell yet they don’t care about the child.  A little common sense can shed a light in this matter. Now just observe families around you and you’ll notice that most families that well…a little well off  have only 2 to 3 children, yet most families that live in depress areas have a factory of children. Most family whose parents have some college education insist to have few children with an interval of birth between 3 to 5 years, whereas family who only have an educational attainment of grade school have children as much as a dozed whose birth intervals can be compared to a stairway -  every year may birthday - WOAH!

 
And what happened with these children? Well maybe the staffs from Pro-Life Philippines should have a tour of Recto to Luneta at 1 to 4 AM and count the number of children sleeping in the streets, or sniffing rubber cement for dinner or breakfast. Now, I’m just thinking, these Catholic priests and their cahoots (like Pro-Life Philippines) preaches to their adherents that it is a blessing to have many children, but where are they when these children , without the proper guidance of their parents, are now living in the streets, doing petty jobs just to survive or even worst ending in crime? What is more moral, to save your so-called sacred sperm or to spare a life on misery because of tradition, superstition and ignorance?

 
Now on another issue, according to Pro-Life Philippines you mustn’t teach sex education to a 10 year old child. Hahaha! Now there is this speaker that says sex is God given and will just go on naturally. Maybe if you’re still living in 18^th century Europe, this is applicable. Before you talk, you have to consider the kind of environment you are living in.  Now in our place, I hear 5 to 6 years old children cuss each other “Putang Ina Mo! Puki ng Nanay Mong Madaldal tinahi ko!”, “Fuck You!” and wait….baka mapuno ko lang ng mga pangit na mura ang blog ko.  Just walk along the streets of Santa Cruz to Divisoria and you’ll be surprise how pornographic DVD,VCD are being sold in the streets like fishballs. AHA! And their packages are just lying there for the children to see. Pictures of a 12 year old child without any underpants being molested by a full-grown, pot bellied jerk old enough to be her daddy. Now what is more disgusting is to see this colored VCD label being held by a 7 year old grade school pupil from a near by elementary school. Or how about this, porno magazine that can rival Larry Flynn’s Hustler Magazine disguised as tabloids littered the streets of Manila. They only worth 15.00 pesos cheap and can be bought by the average Filipino school children. And let us not forget how pornography is now very easily downloaded from the internet and those novelties, double-meaning songs and some raps music being played by the radio. – Like this song about a lady’s rump. Last and not the least, TV shows like Pinoy Big Brother that suggestively displays men “beating their meat”.

 
So by not teaching your child about sex education, a crueler teacher just outside the gates of your house awaits.

 
Next I will talk about the 2 child policy.

 
That’s it for now,

Paalam

 
Pinoy Atheist

 
 
 
 
 

 
 

Corner of the Sky

Everything has its season
Everything has its time
Show me a reason and I’ll soon show you a rhyme
Cats fit on the windowsill
Children fit in the snow
Why do I feel I don’t fit in anywhere I go?

Rivers belong where they can ramble
Eagles belong where they can fly
I’ve got to be where my spirit can run free
Got to find my corner of the sky

Every man has his daydreams
Every man has his goal
People like the way dreams have
Of sticking to the soul
Thunderclouds have their lightning
Nightingales have their song
And don’t you see I want my life to be
Something more than long….

Rivers belong where they can ramble
Eagles belong where they can fly
I’ve got to be where my spirit can run free
Got to find my corner of the sky

So many men seem destined
To settle for something small
But I won’t rest until I know I’ll have it all
So don’t ask where I’m going
Just listen when I’m gone
And far away you’ll hear me singing
Softly to the dawn:

Rivers belong where they can ramble
Eagles belong where they can fly
I’ve got to be where my spirit can run free
Got to find my corner of the sky

Roe v. Wade

I’m too ashamed on my ignorance in the issued tackled in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 . So I would like to offer this space so everyone will have a good idea what this historic decision is all about.

Roe v. Wade was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that laws against abortion violate the constitutional right to privacy. The decision overturned all state laws that banned or restricted abortion.

History

“Jane Roe” (whose real name was Norma McCorvey) was a woman who challenged the criminal abortion laws in Texas as unconstitutional. The abortion laws at the time forbade abortion except in cases where the mother’s life was in danger.

Henry Wade was the Texas Attorney General who defended the anti-abortion law.

Argued December 13, 1971 Reargued October 11, 1972 Decided January 22, 1973

Full case name: Jane Roe, et al. v. Henry Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County Citations: 410 U.S. 113; 93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 159 Prior history: Judgment for plaintiffs, injunction denied, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (N.D. Tex. 1970); probable jurisdiction noted, 402 U.S. 941 (1971); set for reargument, 408 U.S. 919 (1972) Subsequent history: Rehearing denied, 410 U.S. 959 (1973)

The decision in Roe v. Wade prompted a decades-long national debate over whether terminating pregnancies should be legal; the role of the Supreme Court in constitutional adjudication; and the role of religious views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade became one of the most politically significant Supreme Court decisions in history, reshaping national politics, dividing the nation into “pro-choice” and “pro-life” camps, and inspiring grassroots activism.

A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother’s life. A licensed physician (Hallford), who had two state abortion prosecutions pending against him, was permitted to intervene. A childless married couple (the Does), the wife not being pregnant, separately attacked the laws, basing alleged injury on the future possibilities of contraceptive failure, pregnancy, unpreparedness for parenthood, and impairment of the wife’s health. A three-judge District Court, which consolidated the actions, held that Roe and Hallford, and members of their classes, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs’ Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court ruled the Does’ complaint not justiciable. Appellants directly appealed to this Court on the injunctive rulings, and appellee cross-appealed from the District Court’s grant of declaratory relief to Roe and Hallford. Held:
1. While 28 U. S. C. § 1253 authorizes no direct appeal to this Court from the grant or denial of declaratory relief alone, review is not foreclosed when the case is properly before the Court on appeal from specific denial of injunctive relief and the arguments as to both injunctive and declaratory relief are necessarily identical. P. 123.
2. Roe has standing to sue; the Does and Hallford do not. Pp. 123-129.
(a) Contrary to appellee’s contention, the natural termination of Roe’s pregnancy did not moot her suit. Litigation involving pregnancy, which is “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” is an exception to the usual federal rule that an actual controversy must exist at review stages and not simply when the action is initiated. Pp. 124-125.
(b) The District Court correctly refused injunctive, but erred in granting declaratory, relief to Hallford, who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense against the good-faith state prosecutions pending against him. Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66. Pp. 125-127.
(c) The Does’ complaint, based as it is on contingencies, any one or more of which may not occur, is too speculative to present an actual case or controversy. Pp. 127-129.
3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a “compelling” point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term. Pp. 147-164.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.
4. The State may define the term “physician” to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165.
5. It is unnecessary to decide the injunctive relief issue since the Texas authorities will doubtless fully recognize the Court’s ruling that the Texas criminal abortion statutes are unconstitutional. P. 166. 
 

See the full syllabus: http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/410us113.htm

Sarah Weddington argued the cause for Roe twice. Jay Floyd argued the cause for Texas in the first argument. Robert C. Flowers argued the cause for Texas in the second argument.

The conclusion held that a woman’s right to an abortion falls within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Roe v. Wade decision gave women the right to abortion during her entire pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters.

The vote during Roe v. Wade was:

Majority: Blackmun(for the Court), Brennan, Powell, Marshall T.
Concurring: Burger, Douglas, Stewart
Dissenting: Rehnquist, White B.

Where it Stands

Currently an estimated 1,365,000 million women receive abortions in America annually. Approximately 40 million abortions have been performed since 1973 and the Roe v. Wade decision. The number of deaths per 100,000 legal abortion procedures declined five-fold between 1973 and 1991.

Norma McCorvey has changed her view on abortion and now directs the Crossing Over Ministry, a nonprofit anti-abortion organization. Last year she filed a motion with the U.S. District Court in Dallas requesting that Roe v. Wade be reversed, and more recently a federal judge agreed to hear her arguments.

OK here’s the other side

PHILIPPINE GROUPS SUE “CATHOLICS” FOR A FREE CHOICE, CHARGING MEDIA LIES

Deceptive International Campaign Funded by U.S. Foundations is Challenged

MANILA, April 18, 2002 (c-Fam/LSN.ca) - The latest media campaign of “Catholics” for a Free Choice (CFFC) has finally garnered attention, but it may not be the attention CFFC desired — CFFC is being sued for deceptive advertising. For the past few months, CFFC has purchased billboards and newspaper advertisement in cities worldwide, which claim that Catholic bishops “ban” condoms, and that the Church is responsible for the deaths of millions of people due to HIV/AIDS. In response, a group of pro-life and pro-family advocates in the Philippines has lodged a court complaint against CFFC, stating that CFFC’s campaign breaches the country’s code of ethics in advertising.

According to the complaint, the CFFC advertisements are guilty of two separate infractions, “dishonest advertising” and “open and direct disparagement” of religious beliefs. The complainants allege that the campaign is dishonest for a number of reasons, including the simple fact that CFFC “is not Roman Catholic.” In their charges, they ask, “Can a movement be called Catholic, that openly rejects and distorts Catholic teachings, especially respect and protection of defenseless unborn human life?” Referring to CFFC’s unsuccessful “See Change” campaign at the United Nations, they ask, “Can a movement be called Catholic, that masterminds, promotes, and wages a relentless agenda using all means necessary to expel the Holy See from the United Nations?”

The complainants also cite Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza, President of the [U.S.] National Conference of Catholic Bishops, who has stated, “CFFC is not a Catholic organization.CFFC is, practically speaking, an arm of the abortion lobby in the United States and throughout the world.”

According to Jo Imbong, a member of Catholics in Law, a Philippine nongovernmental organization involved in the suit, the CFFC media campaign “was just too much. We want to get the message across: not on our shores.” He also hopes that, through this suit, people “in other countries where similar campaigns are waged will be inspired to stem this insidious affront to our religion.”

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/apr/02041804.html

OK so there are Roman Catholics who’s in favor of birth control. Well there are pros and cons in this issue. Yesterday (Feb 15) I went to a Pro-Life sponsored activity in Fairview, Queszon City (Thanks Sunny for inviting me.)

Sa totoo lang, I was a little bit dissapointed on the issues tackled. (Para akong binasa ng malamig na tubig) I thought they will be talking about the dangers of abortion (so I can hear their side of the story), yet what I heard can be summarized into 3 words; POLITICS, IMPRACTICALITY, AND UNREALISTIC. Next time I will be posting some of my comments in details.

Maybe it’s time I hear the feminist side of the story. 

Hanggang sa susunod,

Pinoy Atheist

Self-Control

Oy! It’s February…so what?

Well for others its valentines Day (Yeepee!!!) But for me it’s the aniversary of the Liberation of Manila and the end of the Third Reich since I never really celebrate Valentines Day.

But for those who will be spending Valentines Day with there love ones. I only have two words to remind them: Self-Control.

Come on guys and gals lets be frank. A lot of people flock motels on Valentines Day. Yes siree! Even Christians get lured in the “Sins of the Flesh”. And I have no right to set up my own moral standards toward their fling. If their parents can’t stop them who am I to accomplised it. Just listen to the news everytime Valentines Day get nearer and you will hear them comparing motel prices.

Now, I am very happy to be invited to the “chain” this coming Feb. 15 courtesy of Pro-Life Philippines. Huh? Nagulat kayo no! Yes I am very much “Pro-life” kahit na atheist ako. Sayang nga lang that the event will be held after Valentines Day. Kasi, It will be very better if it can knock the senses of these hot couples who will be spending their nights together this Valentines eve.

Oh my papaya! After that evening, a lot of people (especially young couples). Ah yes this new generation, who expects more that the usual flowers and chocolates, sweet dates in the moonlight. Now they want to get wild and forget that what they are doing is a part of well…the process of pro-creation. So naturally many women will expect to gave birth by November 2006. Then here we are again, these “walang konsensyang mga kabataan” flock the nearest abortion clinic to kill their babies. Hay buhay!

I really don’t care about the Roe v. Wade issue in the United State. In the first place Pinoy ako hindi Kano. And I just can’t justify murder with the “this is my body, this is my life” issue.  Killing babies doesn’t ads up with a woman’s personal freedom. Now if the girl commited any hanky-panky with her boy friend, does it gives her the right to kill an innocent baby on her womb? NOPE! That is not the solution.

Before indulging yourself to foreplay, please bare in mind that you are responsible for the outcome of your act, and responsibility doesn’t mean to let the doctor grind your baby into bits inside your womb. Mahiya naman kayo sa sarili nyo diba. And guys, guys, guys…If you can’t be responsible to take care of your baby, maybe it’s best to tie a string on your “Johnson” this Valentines Eve.

Remember, you will spend valentines eve in one hell of a night, but you will spend loving your family for eternity. If you are not prepared for that responsibility DON’T DO IT!

Pinoy Atheist

Five Pieces for Five Cents (Lima Sinko)

 

Ah Valentines Day, a day where lovers buy roses to love ones, a day where people wear red clothes to heighten the ambiance. Every February 14, restaurants are filled with dating lovers and love stories fill the cinemas. Love songs fill the airwaves in every radio stations you hear as you pass houses going to the market. Lodges are filled to the max by lovers doing their “thing”. Ah this day….really sucks!

 

You know as I grow tired of this day. I sometimes wonder…why are modern day Filipina becoming soooooo cheap. Yep you heard it right folks…CHEAP! Why? You don’t know why? I’ll tell you why.

 

If compared long ago, I really appreciate those “babe worshipped” songs in the 80’s. Songs like “Sinasamba Kita” (I Worship You) by Rey Vallera, “Be My Lady” by Martin Nievera, “Kamusta Ka” (How Are You) by Nonoy Zuñiga and a lot of songs composed by Mr. Jose Mari Chan talks about how beautiful a woman can be. Here are songs that place a woman on the pedestal. These songs give credit to a woman’s mystery and seductiveness. They show how a lover adores his beloved, like a real treasure. Let’s talk about movies. In the time of the Sampaguita pictures and LVN, We find Filipina women being courted by their suitors. In those times “pinaghihirapan ng lalaki ang panliligaw sa babae.” Films like Takipsilim, Igorota, and Sa Lumang Simbahan shows love themes where women are not insatiable fish pickers.

 

Alas! Gone are those great days.

 

Look at the going thread. This so-called modern lifestyle is not really beneficial. I’m not saying that every modern life style is bad nor am I saying that being a liberated Filipina is cheap. But there is a big difference between being liberated and being down right cheap. Liberated means an independent woman. A woman who can have her own flat, she can raise her status on a male dominated world, and she doesn’t need men to tell her what to do. Now that is being liberated. Now what is down right cheap?

 

Now a days, those love songs that I said earlier where being re-issued. The difference is that today girls with squeaky voices sing those songs. Now you may say that there is nothing wrong with that. Really? Just try to listen to those songs in their cheap versions. If a girl sings the song it’s like that she is pleading for a guy’s love. OH NO!!!!!!! How desperate can she be? Why is there no other guy interested on her that she has to kneel down and embrace the guy’s legs? Now we hear song that makes a woman sound too anxious on a guy’s affection.

 

Aside for those songs, there are songs composed to sound like girls admiring a dork. Example, the song Close to You by the Carpenters. Here is a girl singing praises to a guy who she compares to something which angels go down to, like a god. Now I know why Karen starves herself to death. Here in the Philippines…well the only think I can do is to puke.

 

Now even in movies, WHAAAAAA!!!! The worst. We see girls fighting over a dope. This is very prevalent in Asian telenovelas. So ano yung pinag-aagawan nila? Those “swangays” na mga mukhang kutuhin like those long-haired effeminate Chinese they called F4? Example here in this trash of a TV show called “Meteor Garden”. The girl rented a large sign board to place a sign telling her feelings for the leading creep. Now, why can’t the guy do that for the girl in the first place? Maybe they are too in love with themselves to notice the girl. On the other hand, there are movies, especially western movies, were the leading men, take their desirability because they are great business men, scholarly professors, inventors and the likes that had little time for their wives and female lovers. From these movies, scenes that show these very busy and exceptional men submerged in pressing things like, business growth or radical mathematical equations. Then here comes his better half , girl friend or female lover who does nothing but embrace him from behind and try to entice him to go to bed with her as if that’s the only good thing she could do! What kind of movies are these, showing girls only good for sex, but the male character are exceptional leaders of society? Is this what some women justify as being “liberated”?

 

Because of these media hype, the Filipina are losing her “magic touch” and are now being replaced by trashy girls who hang around in malls, internet cafes, and sleazy movie theaters. Today, just to be noticed, modern day Filipinas tend to be noisy, talkative with their squeaky voice, rivaling the screaming faggots, to flirt around their crushes. NGIIIEEE!!!

Just thinking of it, makes me puke!

 

Today, men collect girls, cheaper by the dozen. Gone are the days of women where being courted and respected. Now you can pull them by the hair to the nearest motel, use them and discard them like candy wrappers. Another lust satisfied, and then calls it a day. I had friends, showing off how many women did they conquered. I don’t find it amusing.

 

I’ve heard news, about the famous dolls Barbie and Ken; after a long separation, Ken is trying to win Barbie back. Mabuti pa yung mga manikang iyan. At least here we see a man, trying to win back a woman’s heart. But here in the Philippines, women are just being collected like lifeless dolls. And as I notice, Filipina women seem to agree with the situation. Oh MY PAPAYA!!! Have they gone insane? Have they loosed their sense of pride and self respect?!?

 

I still believe that somewhere in the nooks and crannies of this decadent Philippine society, a woman with pride and dignity just like the old days, still exist. I just hope that whoever she is, dumami pa sana ang katulad niya…

 

…At twing umuulan ay kapiling ka….

 

Pinoy Atheist

If I’m an File Extention, I’m a…

Which File Extension are You?

Yeah right…

Atheista Ka???

(Note: Written in Tagalog)

“To YOU I’m an atheist; to God, I’m the Loyal Opposition.”– Woody Allen

So, iniisip nyo suguro, bakit sa isang lugar na tinagurian na “The Only Christian Nation in Asia”, bakit may atheista?

“Yan ba ang “in” ngayon?”
“Ano ba ang atheism?”
” Kinakain ba yan?”

Suguro naman hanggang sa matapos mabasa ang article na ito ay nabigyan ko na ng linaw ang ibang mga simpleng katanungan tungkol sa atheism. Sino ba ang dapat panggalingan ng impormasyon tunkol dito? Syempre di yung atheista.

“Ano nga ba ang atheism?”

Napakasimple lang nito.
Ang prefix na “A ” sa salitang “atheism” ay nagsasaad na “not” o hindi at ang ibig sabihin naman ng “theism” ay naniniwala sa diyos o mga diyos. So! sa makatuwid, ang atheism ay naniniwala sa pinaniniwalaan ng isang theista. Isang taong hindi theista, o hindi naniniwala sa diyos o mga diyos.

“Oh my Gawd!!!! Ibig mong sabihin mga taong walang DIYOS?! May ganoon ba? Diba’t lahat tayo’y may diyos?”

Hindi po walang diyos, baka ang ibig mong sabihin ay di naniniwala na mayroong diyos. Wala pong god-concept.

Ang atheism ay hindi isang uri ng “fad”. Simula ng nagkaroon ng malayang kaisipan ang mga tao, nagsimula na rin tanunging kung makatwiran ba ang paniniwala sa isang diyos. Sa Rig-Vedas na isinulat noong 1000 BCE.

“Who knows for certain? Who shall here declare it? Whence was it born and whence came this creation? The gods were born after this world’s creation. Then, who can know from whence it has arisen? None know whence creation has arisen and whether he has or has not produced it. He who surveys it in the highest heaven, he only knows, or happily, he may know not”.

Ito marahil ang nakaimpluensya sa Buddhism, kaya’t naging isang atheistic religion ito. Sa makatuwid, ang isang atheista ay isang taong di naniniwala na ang diyos o mga diyos na eksistido.
May mga ibang atheista na di naniniwala sa lahat ng uri ng diyos, sila ay tinatawag na mga “polyatheist”. Ngunit may mga atheista na hindi naniniwala sa isang uri o particular na god-hypothesis.
Sa maniwala man kayo o hindi, ang mga Kristiano ay tinatawag na atheista ng mga Romano noong unang panahon dahil hindi naniniwala ang mga Kristiano sa mga diyos ng Romano.
Baruch de Spinoza (1632-1677), for example, defined God as being identical to Nature and as a substance with infinite attributes. Many Jews and Christians considered him an atheist because he rejected both the traditional Judeo-Christian deity and the belief in personal immortality. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was also considered an atheist because he believed that all substances are material and that God must therefore be material. Yet, neither Spinoza nor Hobbes called themselves atheists.
Kung tutuusin nga, lahat po tayo ay ipinanganak na atheista.

“ANO!!!??? You must be joking!!”
Hind po. Ipapaliwanag ko. Nang ikaw ay lumabas sa iyong sinapupunan, wala ka pa pong konsepto ng Diyos. Papasok lang po ito kapag nakakaintindi ka na. Ituturo po ito ng iyong magulang. Halimbawa, kung ipinanganak ka sa isang Hindu country, natural na ang una mong pagkakakilala sa Diyos ay mukhang asul na elepante.”Baka naman galit lang kayo sa Diyos?”"Satanista ba kayo?”Ang mga tanong na kagaya nito ay galing sa kaisipan na matagal ng umukit sa isip ng mga mananampalataya.Dahil mula ng pagkabata ay umukit na sa isipan na mayroong isang Diyos, natural na maging radikal at di kaagad matanggap na may sasalungat sa ideya na ito.

Mababasa sa Holy Bible,
“The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.” - Psalm 14: 1
Ito po ay isang halimbawa ng “Ad hominem” argument na hindi sinagot kung bakit may nagsasabi ng ganito proposisyon bagkus pa’y pepersonalin ang nagmumungkahi o “arguer”. Layunin ng mga ganitong uri ng salita na ihinto ang paguungkat ng kasagutan.
Ngunit kung mag-mumuni-muni po lang tayo, kahit mga “believers” ay di nag-kakaisa kung sino ang totoong diyos na dapat paniwalaan. Ayon sa mga editors of the “World Christian Encyclopedia:
A comparative survey of churches and religions - CE 30 to 2200,” there are 19 major world religions which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many smaller ones. 34,000 separate Christian groups have been identified in the world. “Over half of them are independent churches that are not interested in linking with the big denominations.”
Ang issue naman ng pagbibintang na “Satanista” ang mga atheista ay isa nanamang problema ng pagiging ignorante at sa mga tinatawag na “pre-conceived ideas”.Dahil naniniwala ang mga mananampalataya na eksistido ang kanilang diyos, lahat ng magiging taliwas ditto ay isang kalaban o “adversary”.Ang mga atheista ay wala pong konsepto ng Satanas o demonyo.Ang atheista po ay nahahati sa “positive” at “negative” atheism.

“Positive at negative? Parang baterya pala ano.”
Hindi po. Negative atheist po ang tawag sa isang atheista na laging nag-nagtatanong kung mapapatunayan ng isang believer kung eksistido ang diyos. Sa ganitong senario, ang atheista ay walang papatunayan o wala sa kanya ang burden of proof.Sa positive atheism po naman, ang atheista ay may proposisyon na mag-papatunay na hindi eksistido ang diyos. Mayroon na rin syan “burden of proof”.

Sana po ay nasagot ko ang basic ng atheism sa simplem pag-papaliwanag. Sa mga susunod na article ay tatalakayin ko pa po ang ibang issues.
Paalam muna.

John P.