Why are so many Solivens asses?

On March 3, 2008, Sara Soliven De Guzman of the Philippine Star, in her opinion column, “AS A MATTER OF FACT” wrote an article entitled “Whose side is God on?”

If you’re thinking right now that it’s rather presumptuous of anyone to write about where God’s opinion on an issue should fall “as a matter of fact,” well you’re not the only one.

She begins her article with some heinous paragraphs on the true purpose of the religious in society.  She says things like, “spiritual adviser (sic)” and “you should make sure you do not take any side.”  Read the article if you have the patience, but basically she is saying that because the role of the religious is

“to inspire the people of the world to higher aspirations, to provoke people to noble virtues, and to raise the consciousness of mankind. Spiritual people help make our view about life better.”

therefore they shouldn’t be involved in the rallies against and condemnation of the president.  Curiously, not once does the woman invoke the principle of separation of church and state.  Instead she justifies her opinion by saying

“By the way, what if GMA approaches any member of the clergy, to ask for guidance, how can she approach you – when you have already condemned her? In this case, can you truly call yourselves messengers or instruments of God?”

I can’t actually think of anything sufficiently witty and derisive in response to that laughable idea, so if you don’t mind I won’t bother.

She also says that priests and nuns,

“have an inherent sense that they are enlightened which often translates into a feeling of superiority. This very feeling causes them to presume that they know what to do and that they have all the answers.”

I quite agree with her that nuns and priests have an unfortunate tendency to assume moral ascendancy.  I find it amusing that she seems to have exactly the same tendency.  She even goes so far as to say that, “matured ones like many in the CBCP have learned that they do have limitations”.  She is of course referring to the CPCP’s statement that the president should take the lead in searching for truth, creating transparency and accountability in government, and cleaning up corruption.  A silly idea at best, a morally corrupt one at worst; I have no desire to comment further upon it.

            She moves towards the middle of her article from addressing the religious to addressing the general public.  She says,

“Many of our politicians act so holy in the entablado. … The public should not join such bandwagon of the corrupt (sic) in their campaign to oust corrupt officials. … We are not fighting for a Ninoy Aquino to rescue us from this terrible nightmare – Ninoy Aquino is dead. To date, Ninoy has not been cloned yet.”

This is of course a little bit confusing.  The Filipino people did not really fight for Ninoy to rescue them (she may be referring to legal attempts to have Ninoy return from exile, but I hardly see her point regardless); Ninoy was already dead when the people rallied to remove Marcos—we fought for Cory to replace Marcos and she was hardly a perfect option (this is not the same as saying Filipinos asked Cory to “rescue us”, the act of resistance saved the people, Cory simply allowed a government to continue to exist).  Of course, a clear reference to EDSA would be contradictory in the context of this article since the religious had such a vital role to play in that revolution.  I can hardly believe that she is condemning the first people power revolution—but the logic she uses to condemn the movement to oust GMA can easily be applied to that revolution as well (Enrile, Ramos, Honassan and Biazon were at the forefront of that revolution!  How much more corrupt can you get?).  I’ve had this issue with Star writers before; they often seem to take an imaginative view of history to justify their ultra conservative, simpering opinions.

            She soon returns to the clergy saying, “People with a high degree of spirituality point out the path to righteousness, and illumine it with supreme truth.”  It seems to me that that is exactly what they activist nuns and priests are trying to do.  But beyond that, these religious are also citizens; it’s a powerful contradiction to ask them not to act upon their civic opinions just because they happen to own cassocks.  There are of course issues of Church and State separation that become involved in my last statement—but again, Mrs. De Guzman, being a writer for Star, never even mentions them.

            She closes with the point that the UN’s development program is being ignored with this focus on scandal politics.  This is precisely wrong.  The Philippines’ development was being ignored by the administration, by the congress that it controls, by GMA’s corrupt and self-serving cabinet, by every government department (especially NEDA!), and by the senate.  If the people want to put these issues back into focus, we will have to clean house first. 

What’s curious is that De Guzman must be at least partially aware of this painfully obvious fact.  She noted that Star reported that the “Philippines is sliding down” in comparison to the rest of the world—well that slide has been going on for years now!  She tells us to remember that, “life expectancy at birth, adult literacy and gross enrollment at all levels need much attention.”, as if this government were not very much a cause of that fact.

Finally she ends with the insulting exhortation,

“C’mon! Wake up and smell the freshly brewed coffee. It’s a Monday. This is the dawn of a new day. Let’s get to work with a new direction and a new spirit. Let us not be pulled down by politics and controversies – rise up and shine!”

What does that even mean?  Forget that the president stands accused of trying to kidnap a senate witness, just get on with your lives.  Is that her definition of “shine”?

            Well, that is why, Sara Soliven De Guzman, you should shut-up your face-hole.

(BTW, all this nonsense could be easily avoided if all those nuns and priests would take my advice and become atheists.  Barring that, allow me to quote another atheist’s opinion on the role of the religious:

“What the world expects of Christians is that Christians should speak out, loud and clear, and that they should voice their condemnation in such a way that never a doubt, never the slightest doubt, could rise in the heart of the simplest man … The grouping we need is a grouping of men resolved to speak out clearly and to pay up personally. … We are still waiting, and I am waiting, for a grouping of all those who refuse to be dogs and are resolved to pay the price that must be paid so that man can be something more than a dog.”

That was Albert Camus, you may have heard of him.)