Deception

A shroud of lace
Covers my eyes
Conceals my face
And all your lies

You bought my love
With sweetened drugs
I soared above
Held down by tugs

So much damage
No veil can hide
All the sickness
Hidden inside

Fundamentalists and Hypocrites

In my teens, I was under a struggle with my faith. Then, when I was 19, upon learning that God can help those who have been seriously hurt, like ex-atheist-turned-Christian-rock-star Lacey Mosley, who has been outspoken about her faith since she was rescued from suicide at 16 years old, I thought, How could I doubt He can rescue me, too, when she got bigger problems than I?

I was raised a Catholic, and I loved to read Bible stories. My favorite parable was the one about the Parable of the Talents, but the one that struck me the most was the Parable of the Unforgiving Slave. From that, I learned to take Jesus's two powerful commandments seriously: 37Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” In relation with the Parable of the Unforgiving Slave, I'm going to focus on the second commandment.

I've been a YouTube user since 2007, I think, and I've come upon many atheists, who, despite their blatant refusal to understand how faith works, have earned my respect because of their intelligence that I could only wish that they find find God and accept that He loves them. Sadly, most of the rest of these internet atheists are trolls who bash Christians and Christianity for the sake of proving the invalidity of the Christian faith and religion in general. But what breaks my heart even more are the Christians who shove their religion in people's faces and pretend to know so much about their faith but totally behave the opposite way of how they're supposed to.

God gave us free will so we would love and serve Him with all our heart. Even if we turn away from Him, we are free to go back. We are made in His image and likeness, so we are expected to act by our divine nature and let others think and act on their own. We are not to impose our faith on anyone; the most we can do is encourage them.

Just last night, I came upon an arrogant Christian in the comments section under a video with a Nine Inch Nails song called "Heresy". He (or she) was arguing with an atheist, trying to prove the existence of God by explaining the "order of the universe". I knew he was trying to do what St. Thomas Aquinas did in Summa Theologia, where Aquinas strained his reason to explain how there is a God, and with that, he filled out a big, fat book. Thomas Aquinas was a brilliant man; even so, I don't believe that explaining God with all his human reason was a piece of cake. That the Christian on YouTube attempted that in a single comment seemed to me so arrogant to the point of being ludicrous. I genuinely felt very bad for him and the person he is arguing with because the Christian guy won't get respect, and the atheist would not understand where the discussion is going. I gave him a piece of my mind: "It's people like you and your 'just because' arguments that make Christianity look bad. You're not making any sense. You don't give out such broad points and expect people to understand you. If you want to prove God is real, you show it, not shove it." That was fair, wasn't it? But he lashed out at me with "its people like you who should EAT A DICK lololol".

An earlier comment controlled my urge to lash back, and it made me feel heaps better. "... In case you read this, I believe in God as well but I don't shove it in people's faces and talking down to people because they don't. You should try it, stop being close minded. ..." I guess it wasn't worth it to fight back. I already did my part on showing him how to defend his faith; if he doesn't listen, let him face the consequences. For someone who believes in God, he surely has no idea how to show it. Christians are supposed to show love and kindness, even to those who spite them, for 'tis in this way that others would learn how it is to love the way that God taught us.

Arguing with a Non-Catholic

Just a few years ago, I reaffirmed my faith in God. My participation in the church choir helped better my understanding of my faith. As a Catholic, I also believe in the intercession of Mary and the saints. Non-Catholic sects perceive it as worshipping Mary and the saints instead of God; I would like to point out that it doesn’t work that way.

I’ve had at least one encounter with atheists challenging Christians to debates. At first, I thought it was difficult, but I spoke too soon. It’s a little more challenging when a fellow Christian—non-Catholic—criticizes Catholicism and brands it as a phony. There’s one Christian YouTuber than outright bashed Catholicism on his MySpace blog. I was so not pleased. Since I don’t have a MySpace account, I commented him on his YouTube profile. I was relatively calm, but I can not stand that he accused Catholics of worshipping Mary or the Pope, and also said that the Catholic Church is a phony Church made by man, which is ridiculous.

“Don’t bash something you don’t understand,” I told him. He apologized right away, and pointed out his views according to the Scriptures, which is perfectly fine. But I noticed through the Biblical quotes that he posted that he has a rather fundamentalist perception of Christianity and the Church. He showed me that the True Church is the one that will come on the Apocalypse, the New Jerusalem, according to the Book of Revelation.

I understand his views. But I think he missed out on a few basic facts:

Christianity as an established religion began with the Roman Catholic Church in Rome, when Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity and made it the official religion in Rome. The Greek Orthodox Church kinda made a big deal about it, but since Rome was the one in power at the time, the Roman Catholic Church was recognized as the origin of Christianity as we know it today.

But that’s not saying that St. Peter (who is widely recognized as the first Pope because Jesus appointed him as the Rock or cornerstone) or Constantine established the Church. Jesus is the true Founder of the Church; He is the Head, and the Church His Body; the children of God, the “Beautiful Bride [and] Body of Christ; one flesh abiding, strong and unifying.” (From “Beautiful Bride” by Flyleaf) St. Peter and the succeeding Popes are just His earthly representatives.

The YouTuber did not argue further; neither did I. As far as I’m concerned, (and I’m sure he feels the same way, too) we shouldn’t even be arguing in the first place because we worship the same God; we are both His children. Although his insinuations still gets my blood boiling, I am willing to keep my cool. “Peace be with you, my brother in Christ,” I told him on my last PM. To my surprise, he was just as willing to make peace with me; he added me as a friend on YouTube. I accepted.

I hope that’s that.

Jacob's Kiss

For the past several months, I’ve been joining the bandwagon of Twilight Haters (a.k.a. “anti’s”) who read the entire Twilight series for the sake of either acquiring concrete basis for their dislike, or for having something to make fun of. I am doing it for the former, and to try to find the reason why fans of the series exist in the first place.

I am now more than halfway through Eclipse—a feat that I never thought was possible until I was there. Eclipse, the third volume of the so-called Saga, was the straw that broke the camel’s back for many a hater, and even a few fans. The highlighted reasons for this are as follows:

1. Edward’s abusive and controlling behavior
a. Taking out the engine of her truck to keep her from visiting her best friend Jacob
b. Bribing his sister Alice with a yellow Porsche to take Bella hostage
2. Jacob forcing a kiss on Bella

So many anti’s have discussed the first one that I feel I don’t have to tire myself by repeating my fellow haters’ sentiments. However, I have my own complaints about it, aside from the fact that Edward is a glorified abuser. I have a problem with Bella’s viewpoint about it. When Alice picks her up from work, Bella figures out what was going on and asks, “Alice, don’t you think this is just a little bit controlling? Just a tiny bit psychotic, maybe?” Alice responds with: “Not really. You don’t seem to grasp how dangerous a young werewolf can be. Especially when I can’t see them. Edward has no way to know if you’re safe. You shouldn’t be so reckless.” If you ask me, even with consideration with the circumstances involved, what Edward did was improper, especially for a boyfriend. But Bella automatically accepts Alice’s explanation, as though it was the most reasonable thing in the world. I was even more disgusted, later, when Jacob confronts Bella about what Edward did: “You forgave him for all that?” Bella answers, “There was nothing to forgive.”

Really? Practically taking her vehicle apart—nothing? Acting as if he has any authority over her—nothing? They are lovers! They are supposed to be equals! Keeping Bella safe—that is not Edward’s job; he is not her father. Behaving like one just takes their relationship to a whole new level: their love becomes more perverse than it already is; the protective paternal gesture merges erotic and filial love.

Most fans claim that Bella’s willingness for Edward to do these things justifies his actions. What these fans don’t realize is that victims of abuse are often in denial and unable to recognize the signs of abuse because they are blinded by love; they fool themselves into thinking that that their love is worth sacrificing their freedom and personal happiness, or that maybe the guy has a good reason. This is exactly how Bella’s mind works. She doesn’t quite realize she’s being victimized by her boyfriend, who probably doesn’t realize he’s going about things the wrong way either.

This brings me to the next point: Jacob forcing himself on Bella, to the point of kissing her without permission. To female anti’s in particular, this is a big deal. It’s extremely improper for a man to kiss a woman once she’s made it clear that she’s in love with someone else. When Jacob kisses her so forcefully, she has every right to be angry. But wait, does she?

Maybe it’s the part of me screaming “TEAM JACOB!” that’s trying to cut Jacob some slack. To some extent, Jacob has his own valid points in the conversation before and after the kiss:

“You wouldn’t have to change anything for me. You know Charlie would be happy if you picked me. I could protect you just as well as your vampire can — maybe better. And I would make you happy, Bella. There’s so much I could give you that he can’t. I’ll bet he couldn’t even kiss you like that — because he would hurt you. I would never, never hurt you, Bella.”
(Eclipse – PDF, page 255)

“They told me I couldn’t tell you — that it wasn’t safe for you if we were together. But I never left, never! I used to run around your house at night — like I do now. Just making sure you were okay.”
(Eclipse – PDF, page 255)

If you ask me, that’s more than enough reason for Bella to choose Jacob over Edward. The kiss, in a way, was his last desperate attempt of claiming her. I was ticked off by Jacob’s show of arrogance after the kiss. This is probably why many fans go for Team Edward. But thanks to another anti’s opinion, I now share her sentiment on the possibility that Stephenie Meyer made Jacob a jerk to make Edward look good by comparison. But I take that as Jacob’s mask, his attempt to his sense of defeat, especially in front of Edward. It’s not so different from Leah Clearwater, who keeps a brave face while she could only watch her ex fall in love with her second cousin, her best friend Emily Young.

I haven’t read up on Leah Clearwater yet. I shall be making a new entry about her soon.

Why I'm Going to Watch New Moon

As much as I hate the Twilight series in general, I am looking forward to seeing the first sequel New Moon. I read the book, in my effort to understand what it is that Twi-Hards love so much about the series. Months ago, I would have said that I would watch New Moon to bash it like I did Twilight. After I read New Moon, I found that it’s something that I actually would like to see, for some reason.

Don’t get me wrong: I still don’t like Twilight. And New Moon is not any better than Twilight. It’s just as badly written; there is no character development; and Bella Swan remains such a poor excuse for a protagonist that she puts to shame even stupid fourteen-year-old Juliet Capulet, who she likes identifying with so much. In fact, Bella comparing herself to Juliet is rather arrogant; in analogy, it’s Stephenie Meyer comparing herself to Shakespeare, which is just as ridiculously pompous. Talk about delusions of grandeur.

However, if there’s anything good that I encountered in reading New Moon was the freshness that Jacob Black brings to Bella Swan’s life after Edward Cullen so cruelly leaves her. Sunny and charming, Jacob is fun to be with and easy to talk with. Even at the time when his own life changes and he has to keep secrets from Bella, he doesn’t make things hard for her by pretending that there is nothing wrong going on. His relationship with her is based more on a real bond of friendship rather than magic (in Edward’s case). There is vulnerability in Jacob that is so captivating that it rivals the invincibility that Edward seems to put off. This is what I would love to see interpreted in the big screen.

Meanwhile, after viewing the trailers of New Moon, another thing that fascinated me was the treatment that the adaptation gives to the so-called Volturi, an ancient coven of vampires residing in Volterra, Italy, who act as a sort of government for vampires.

The Volturi makes sure that the existence of vampires is kept secret from humans. They also make it a point to observe discipline among vampires, meaning that vampires must not kill too many humans at a time so as to not risk exposing their existence. I didn’t see much of this facet of the Volturi in New Moon because the book focuses solely on Bella mourning over a runaway boyfriend a great deal more than a normal person would grieve over a dead loved one.

After reading about the Volturi in Twilight fansites, I was almost instantly interested. Aro, the elderly coven leader, for example, likes to collect people with supernatural talents and turn them into vampires to add to the Volturi. Among these people are young twins Jane (Dakota Fanning) and Alec (Cameron Bright, X-Men: The Last Stand), who have powers they use for mental torture. And as displayed in the third trailer, we see Felix (Daniel Cudmore, X-Men: The Last Stand) fighting Edward Cullen, which is going to be quite interesting, because such a scene did not exist in the book. It was kind of a treat for me, too, because I really like to see somebody beating Edward Cullen.

So those are my reasons for watching New Moon later this month. If anything, I expect it’s gonna be nice to look at. Jacob Black’s wolf transformation in the first trailer is amazing.

Epiphany

Chaos and mediocrity is rampant in the Philippines, but it is worth noting that a majority of its people still fervently defend it when a foreigner dares to criticize it, usually in the least tactful way possible. In a way, Filipinos do have the right to defend their nation’s dignity, but given the nation’s present condition, it’s not always a good thing. But in such times, one would observe a kind of unity in such grievances. If not stressing their painful history, Filipinos would assert that their identity as a nation has been deeply insulted. Although the claim is fairly legitimate, it is flawed: What is it that makes a Filipino? Nobody seems to know, so there seems to be no point claiming something to be of essence.

I have been constantly confronted by the question in the last few years, and it hasn’t been easy. I have been conflicted by my people’s ignorance and arrogance, so harshly that I wonder: maybe there is something there worth fighting for, after all; maybe they know something that I don’t, and whatever that is, my people haven’t been able to point out for a while now.

After much deliberation, it occurred to me: being Filipino is more than having strong family ties or being hospitable or industrious or having an unstoppable sense of humor. Being Filipino is even more than defending the Philippines from foreign opposition; in relation to that, why are Filipinos so adamant in protecting their country from outsiders? Well, the sentiment is not too different from people of other nations; there is something that binds peoples to their country of origin and hence, people of the same origin. Why else would people of a certain country fight so hard against a foreign rule threatening to take over? They always struggle for the cause of “freedom,” which would closely translate being in control of one’s own space. Furthermore, a nation is attached to their country of origin because there is a sort of reconciliation between the people and the land which they call their home.

The Philippines is mother to the Filipinos. Anybody whose lineage traces back to the Philippines is a brother, which is perhaps why Filipinos tend to impose their nationality on anyone with Filipino blood. We are not like the Japanese, who tend to discriminate against individuals a fraction of foreign blood; we are the opposite. We tend to embrace individuals with even the tiniest drop of Filipino blood. Sometimes, we get carried away, but that’s how we show our love for country. I guess that also explains why even those who have left the motherland feel thrilled to meet others of the same bloodline.

Bloodline must not be confused with race. (I daresay some of my people tend to confuse it.) Filipinos are generally of a mixed race: anyone who calls himself a Filipino has at least one foreign ancestor. These people would include Chinese Filipinos (mestizos included) and some Indians, Japanese and Arabs—non-indigenous peoples who have bonded with the Philippines through shared history.

However, although Filipinos value the notion of blood relations, being of the same bloodline is not essential to being Filipino. A pureblood Chinese, for example, may call the Philippines home and might as well call himself a part of the nation, while an American of Filipino descent would rather identify with his American side than his Filipinos side. As I explained earlier, it has more to do with the inhabitants’ attachment to the place.

Therefore, the Filipino society being a potpourri of cultures through a colorful history of intermingling with visitors, Filipino culture as we know it today has become a blending of various elements of cultures—both native and foreign. It would be pointless to argue that there is no “true” Filipino culture because of it being molded through foreign relations; Filipino culture is of mixed cultures, just as its people are mostly of mixed race. Filipinos are attuned to it as something they can call their own. It has shaped them into who they are now. Only an unfortunate series of circumstances has deformed Filipino culture, which foreigners are quick to point out as severely flawed.

Indeed, it is badly misshapen, that Filipinos can no longer pinpoint what it is that binds them as a nation. I have only managed to do so now, and it has taken me years. We Filipinos have a bond with our country that is so strong that we are willing to fight in an effort not to sever it. We love our country because it is where we can be ourselves and be in control.

In the present, the Philippines is not exactly paradise. Every aspect of Filipino culture and society today may be flawed and definitely not worth being proud of anymore. Things have gotten so bad that Filipinos leave the country, and many more intend to do the same. On one hand, things might be too late; on the other hand, if somebody takes a stand, we might have a fighting chance. I am a Filipino; I am done fighting it. The Philippines is my home; I cannot sit here and complain anymore. I know it’s in bad condition, but just because it can’t serve me doesn’t mean it’s not worth taking care of. Although I am leaving the Philippines, it is not to abandon it. I will make a change.

Danielle de Barbarac a Mary Sue?

This has disturbed me since I read this essay on Mary Sues, which fleetingly mentions Danielle de Barbarac as a Sue. Although I could see that Danielle's character matches the qualities of a Mary Sue, I keep finding myself trying to make excuses that she's not.

When I watched Ever After in full for the first time last year, I was absolutely awed at Danielle de Barbarac’s display of wit and intellect. As a girl, Danielle grew up listening to her father as he read to her books on philosophy and science. Such subjects captured her heart; in the years to come, after her father’s sudden death, she treasures these ideals she learned in these books, especially in Sir Thomas More’s Utopia. In effect, Danielle grows to care so much for the peasants and outcasts, especially when she becomes one herself when her stepmother turns her into a servant.

Ten years after her father’s death, she carries with her these passions; this is perhaps what keeps her strong in life and work. In an effort to keep Maurice, her family’s oldest servant, she disguises herself as a “courtier” and impresses Prince Henry and his men by reciting: “A servant is not a thief, and those who are can’t help themselves. If you suffer your people to be ill-educated and punish them for that educated disposed of them, what else is to be concluded, sir, but that you make thieves and then punish them?”

I was impressed myself and after other similar quotes, Danielle gradually stole my heart.

For the rest of the movie, she keeps charming the Prince and also Signore Leonardo da Vinci with her witty and feisty attitude. Danielle might be unusually free-spirited for a 16th-century French woman, but at least it makes sense: her father was a healthy man who gave her access to heavy books. Besides, it is from lack of maternal guidance that Danielle’s best ladylike ways do not come naturally and have to be observed from wealthier women. This is perhaps reason enough for her not to be uptight or squeamish unlike her stepsisters Marguerite and Jacqueline. Danielle is fun-loving and adventurous like the present-day woman. She even befriended a gang of gypsies, who are considered outsiders who don’t deserve anyone’s sympathy.

Another realistic touch to Danielle is that, with her powerful ideals, it would have been more sensible for her to run away from the manor and make a life for herself. But she doesn’t for the sake of self-preservation (at least she gets fed and sleeps with a roof over her head) and to keep an eye on her parents’ valuable properties and the servants she considers her only family.

Danielle is undoubtedly a good character, but a Mary Sue?

According to TV Tropes, a character with Sue-ish qualities can get away with it if written well. Danielle may be incredibly smart and witty and “beautiful all along” but by the way she’s written out, it works.

Perhaps what ruins her is the climax, when Monsieur Pierre Le Pieu was held at swordpoint—his life in exchange for her freedom. “My father was an excellent swordsman; he taught me well,” Danielle warns the lustful merchant. Meanwhile, her designated love interest, Prince Henry, is racing to rescue her, but by the time he arrived, Danielle is walking out of the mansion completely unharmed, as a display of her independence. It would have worked if it didn’t involve a sword, because that seemed to have come out of nowhere. Danielle was supposedly eight years old when her father died; what self-respecting father would teach a little girl to do combat? He might as well have handed her a gun.