Religion in marriage intrusive, self-indulgent

Ask yourself the same question: “Would you change your religious beliefs to marry the person you love? Why or why not?”

Personally, this question is a non-issue. Inserting religion into marriage or any social functions, like medical practice or education, for example, is intrusive and self-indulgent. Love, to achieve its ultimate goal, must be unconditional. But if someone feels he/she can insert or force his/her religion into marriage, he/she needs to re-evaluate his or her purview about what constitutes well-being in a marital relationship and how it flourishes.

Miss Angola, in my view, got away with an easy answer. There is nothing more ubiquitous than the issue of physical and racial differences. I will not fault Shamcey for her answer. Shamcey’s question is definitely an issue that many can agree to disagree on. Shamcey grew up in a culture and country that considers being religious as a sort of a birthright. Where religion takes precedence and valued over everything else and takes hold on politics, education and government.

Despite Shamcey’s higher education, mental and intellectual acuity, her answer failed to do her justice. It’s an example of how perfectly intelligent and normal people get to say nonsensical answers because of religion. Imagine what an ordinary Arab woman would feel and think.

Shamcey’s answer further reinforces the religious injunction and limitations that women in her country are already experiencing. Or a western woman would be shocked to hear Shamcey’s answer as contrary to her democratic beliefs of gender and religious equality. As a Miss Universe aspirant, she also represents these women from other nations, not just the Philippines.

Shamcey only has 30 seconds to answer and gave the best answer she could come up with. Her answer is OK for Filipinos but apparently not enough for the rest of the world, or the judges

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/12347/religion-in-marriage-intrusive-self-indulgent#ixzz3ASdmqLGt

Cruz’s critics threat to free society

When Kurt Westergaard, the Danish cartoonist, drew in December 2005 a cartoon depicting Muhammad in a “blasphemous” way, the Islamic world called for his death. (Every pious Muslim, who has the duty to protect Islam, is bound to get rid of this heathen for the glory of Allah.) There were riots all over the Muslim world and burning of embassies because someone dared to humiliate all Muslims. Up to this day, the injunction remains. In fact, in 2009, a Somali man broke into Westergaard’s home and nearly murdered him if not for the “safe room” he made. Kurt is still under police protection.

Then came Mideo Cruz. His “blasphemous” “Poleteismo” depicting pictures and images of Jesus Christ with a genital and blood dripping from the eyes drew condemnation from the religious and even politicians. Although no one called for his death, you can sense that somehow common sense has died because of the “concerns” of the Catholic Church, pro-life groups and media-hogging politicians.

The peculiar concerns of religions over a blasphemous art work have created a society, a people that get riled easily in the face of criticism such that they will protest and demonize a minority (artists). Why the wrong priorities? Islam and Catholicism are religions of tolerance, of peace, forgiveness and love. Somehow, some people in these religions make it their priority criticizing people for “offending religious sensitivity” and sue for “acts of vandalism” and even calling for death.

When a free society gives in to this threat from the religious, it hinders free speech. The problem is made worse because too few speak about it. The more people speak out and express ideas, the better. Free expression reduces the threat.

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/11035/cruz%e2%80%99s-work-threat-to-free-society#ixzz3ASGGX7mQ