Is There A God?

When typhoon “Ondoy” caused massive destruction in some parts of Luzon I was practically clueless. I was merely sitting in my room doing nothing the whole day. Then, lights suddenly went dead. As darkness fell, I turned on my transistor radio hoping that I would find something entertaining to listen to. But I was devastated to hear that so many people were already missing as a result of the flood. And the numbers kept on increasing by the hour. Soon text messages coming from my loved ones started to fill-in my inbox. All of them asked the same question: Where are you? Are you okay? It never occurred to me that some parts of the region were already laid to waste by typhoon “Ondoy.” I then decided to come out of my room which is situated in the 2nd floor and see what was really happening in the outside world. I was shocked to learn that downstairs water rains started to occupy the entire receiving area of the dormitory. The dorm helpers were busy marching to and fro with their faces seemingly terrified and confused. Honestly, the feeling was similar to what I felt a few years back when I watched “Deep Impact” in the movie theater. In the streets of Taft Avenue, people were already preparing for the worst. In my 6 year stay in the Metropolis, this was the first time I witnessed such a frightening scene. In the midst of it all, I never felt so alone in my life.

I hurriedly went back to my room and composed myself. What should I do in the event the water rises and reached my room? Should I call my mom and tell her what was really happening here in Manila? But I brushed it aside, knowing that God is with me. I tried my best to stay calm until I heard a knock on my door. It was my next door roommate Ella, the call center agent who works in Ortigas. Her face certainly looked ashen. I then asked her what’s wrong. She told me, sounding so desperate, that she lost contact with her younger sister who works in Pasig. Panic set in when a field reporter on the radio announced that Pasig was among the critically flooded areas within the Metro. I instantly console her. But my comforting words seemed to fell on deaf ears. She blurted as if stressing a point in a debate: You are Christian aren’t you? I proudly said yes. Without missing a beat, he replied: Then tell me, where is God in all this? That question undoubtedly jarred my databank and to certain extent, magnified my hidden fears. I could almost hear Gary V. poignantly singing, Natutulog ba ang diyos, natutulog ba? Feeling the pangs of restlessness in her, I just proposed one solution, and that is to pray. In less than an hour she came back into my room, this time with a smile. Her sister was safe and sound. It was unfortunate that my friend never even bothered to thank God as she left the room.

My friend Ella did raise a valid question, isn’t it? What was God doing when typhoon “Ondoy” destroyed some parts of the country? Why did he not save innocent people, including those helpless children who drowned in the flood? Were the communication lines in heaven too busy for prayers at that time typhoon “Ondoy” unleashed its wrath? Or were they merely talking to a “tooth fairy” or an imaginary friend? Let me then position the question in the proper perspective. If there really exists a God, and that he is an all-knowing and all-powerful God, why does he allow suffering and evil in this world? Taken the question into its logical foundation, there are at least two inferences when the coexistence of good God and evil is being raised. First, if God is all-powerful and all-loving, how come evil is so evident and uncontained? The second is more difficult because it deals with the Christian notion of God’s nature and character viz: Assuming God exists, how can he be called good while allowing death and destruction to happen? These to my mind are among the most pressing questions against the Christian faith that speaks of a loving god who is in control of all things. For one, unlike hard philosophical or intellectual roadblocks, the problem of suffering and evil confront mankind in its day to day existence. Its impact in our lives can easily be felt and seen because it squarely deals with human emotions and reality in general. In other words, this is not a dialogue limited to a handful of purported “intellectuals” within the academic halls of philosophical studies for even Christians too asked the same questions.

As Christians, how then should we respond to the problem of suffering and evil vis a vis the existence of God? I think the question could be answered in two possible tiers of reasoning. First, the philosophical level of reasoning and second, would be through biblical reasoning or the existential response. To be sure, the question posed by Ella does not hinge on whether God exists or not. The question however is geared not against God’s existence but upon his nature and character. Nonetheless given Ella’s presupposition as a doubting Christian, I shall however deal with the philosophical implications on the problem of evil juxtaposed with the argument from morality as evidence for the existence of God.

Very well, when one raises the problem of evil as evidence for God’s non-existence, he is more likely to assert that there is such a thing as good. And when there is such a thing as good, the necessary implication would be that there is a moral law or some standard by which to differentiate between good and evil. In the ultimate analysis, you have to posit a moral lawgiver as the source of the moral law-and that is God. In Mere Christianity, renowned Christian thinker C.S. Lewis says that moral law cannot be merely a social convention. It is more like a mathematical table, according to him. We would never say that the math table is a social convention made up to help us and that we could have made differently if we wanted to. To put it more bluntly, two plus two will always equal four irrespective of culture. Hence, a moral law could not have been a mere product of consensus amongst human beings in this planet. Regardless of culture, people seemed to agree at some point, whether consciously or not, that there is such a thing as right and wrong in their dealings with each other. They act according to some kind of standard of behavior most of the time, if not all the time. For instance, as C.S. Lewis put it in The Law of Human Nature, “Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are, just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.” But having established the existence of some kind of moral standards, are we supposed to assume directly that there is indeed a God? And that no moral law can exists apart from Him?

If life, as they say is random or guided purely by chance, how come moral rules or standard exist? We have seen one of the goriest events in history such as the mass extermination of the Jews in Nazi Germany and Stalin’s exploits in Russia. All of these horrific events are attributed to a society which is built partly upon Kantian theory of ethics. To reiterate, it was the philosopher Immanuel Kant who sought to provide a moral impetus within man and attempted to build a system of right and wrong based on reason alone. The end result of a godless society wherein moral rules were made dependent on one man- in the name of Adolf Hitler- had been catastrophic and terrifying. If rules of morality are being measured on reason alone, which is clearly subjective, we can never have objective moral rules to follow. Everything is wrongheaded and is bound to be meaningless. With reason, as postulated by Kant, the telos or the purpose of human life is missing. Obviously, we cannot have at least a common ground from which to establish the starting point of an objective moral order. But with God as the starting point of a moral law, the logical connection can easily be established as evidenced by the Christian experience.

To raise the classic question on the problem of evil and morality actually proves, rather than disprove God’s existence. The esteemed Dr. Ravi Zacharias, one of my favorite contemporary philosophers on the subject, tells us that the existence of God cannot be disproved by introducing the reality of evil or wickedness. Those categories, as explained above, only exist if an absolute moral law exists. And an absolute moral law exists only if God exists. To justify the question, God must remain in the picture otherwise there can be no rational basis from which the question is based. For how can one raise the problem of evil using reason or “feeling” alone as the criterion from which to distinguish good and bad? Who sets the rules under this setting? See, the question of coexistence between a good God and the reality evil cannot be resolve on the basis of sheer relativism. For the simple reason that one cannot make an absolute statement based on one’s personal feeling on a matter-that would be an entirely subjective statement. In response to militant atheist Sam Harris’ diatribe against Christianity in Letter to a Christian Nation, Dr. Zacharias in his book entitled, The End of Reason had this to say: “For Harris to convince us that Hitler was wrong to do what he did, he has to borrow from an objective moral framework to support his point. Let me put it in another way. If Harris’ assertion that no moral order is visible in the world is true, we may well ask why Hitler couldn’t introduce his own order. What was wrong with what he did? What is the basis on which Harris is calling Hitler immoral? Or is he calling him immoral?” The point that the author wishes to make here is very clear. To raise the question on the reality of evil, one must first recognize the existence of God otherwise the question is not justified because he has no objective moral framework to begin with from which to judge what is good and evil. Verily, he has no standing whatsoever to put into question God’s character as moral or immoral other than his own personal preference of what morality is. Either way, the question self-destructs or loses its meaning along the way. This is not a cop-out to be sure, for in order to raise the question validly and credibly one must first justify the argument from morality vis a vis God’s existence. As mentioned earlier, reason or feeling alone cannot be the source of an objective moral law or standard because for one, it lacks the element of a moral point of reference that we Christians have and that is God-the revealer of right and wrong.

As I write this piece, another typhoon in the name of “Santi” has just landed in some parts of Luzon, including Metro Manila, where I m actually sitting at this very moment. Rains started to pour early afternoon and we will be expecting strong winds to come at midnight. Again, electricity has been preemptively cut-off for the safety of the general public. While everyone is preparing for the worst sort of a déjà vu, here I am writing this piece, which to my mind is far more important than any other preparations for the impending calamity. With my reasonable faith in God solidly intact, no amount of strong winds can blow my deep-seated belief away from God. With my faith resting on solid foundations, no amount of gigantic waves can shake it nor wipe it away from Him. Bring it on then!


postcript:
I shall be dealing with the book of Job from the Old testament in my next writing(The personal level of reasoning) The above discussion centers on the philosophical aspect of the reality of suffering and evil as espoused by Christian thinkers of our time.

A Political First

Today I would like to write about campus politics, if I may. Back in college, I too had my fair share of triumphs and a bunch of disappointments as an idealistic student leader. As you may well know, I hail from a place where politics is synonymous to money, racial domination, and a little bit of assassination. During my time, school politics was not much of a difference. It has all the necessary ingredients like backroom-dealing, double-speaking and yes, horse-trading too. No wonder why most of my erstwhile colleagues are now making their respective niches on local politics and public service. I guess, campus politics really helped them a lot in terms of training and experience. As for me, I had a change of heart and landed in another field but that of course, is a different story.

The day I enter school politics was the start of my transformation. Who would have thought that I would shift my interest to academics and school politics? I was a happy-go-lucky guy. I prefer grunge music than political theories. I had no political blood running into my veins. Even my mother could not believe at first that his prodigal son had just hanged his guitar on the wall and finally said goodbye to his teenage dream of becoming a rockstar. Good grief, my political science professor saw something in me. I don’t really know at that time what she meant when she said I had the potential to excel in academics. And so she groomed me as a student leader and persuaded me to run for school senator.

At the outset, joining school politics was a perfectly natural thing for me. Some say I was destined to be a pompous school politician because of my outspoken convictions as a student. That may be true, but I was also a friendly creature according to my kindergarten teacher. But let me qualify a bit. I like to be alone most of the time rather than hanging out with friends. For a guy who values privacy more than anything else, I’m not quite sure if I could bargain it away just like that. Entering campus politics I thought meant “plastikan” with fellow students. Although I had the ample experience of being in front of the “hooting throng,” this time it would be entirely different if not strange. For one, being on stage then was easy provided I had my RJ guitar with me. But I mustered enough courage this time since I don’t want to disappoint the faculty teachers of the political science department. I vowed to take the lead if only to inspire others to do the same.

I can still remember the day when the presumptuous presidential candidate invited me to join his political party. He was full of the usual platitudes befitting a traditional politico. All the while he thought I was not privy with his kind of politics. But he was careful enough with his choices of words making it appear less manipulative. I had no choice really but to support his candidacy. Apparently, it was a three-cornered presidential election with two contenders belonging to same department-the education bloc and the other from the political science department. Following the old Roman strategy of “divide et impera” or divide and rule, I thought it wise to run under the latter. And so to solidify our position, I finally said yes. It never occurred to me that our senatorial line-up was a complete mess. Most of my party-mates were better off as clowns and street buffoons. Surely I thought, even with the best decisive political strategy there’s no way we could survive the campus elections. But the Machiavellian in me sensed an opportunity to bolster my image by standing on the shoulders of the clowns, if you know what I mean.

My humble alma mater had three campuses situated in three different municipalities. My decision to join a well entrenched political party was partly because of geographical consideration. Who would want to join a race without a racehorse? In political terms, that would be a sure-fire political hara kiri. And not to mention the racial profiling when you are a Christian candidate. Muslim votes comprise more than half of the voting population in my school. A political party with Muslim candidates would surely help you familiarize and reach out even to the marginalized students in the isolated areas. These factors led me to conclude that I had to blend-in otherwise I would lose the elections big time.

I practically run for school senator under a principled and idealistic platform. Instead of the usual political blah blah, I envisioned to improve the quality of rules of procedure within the Student Council. My idea was too remote and peculiar since students could not relate with the kind of reforms I was bound to do if elected. During campaign sorties, I took the pains of introducing parliamentary procedures and its intrinsic function in the inner workings of any legislative body. Sounding almost like a pastor in the pulpit, I explained the dual purpose of my advocacy. First, quality council deliberation and proceedings, and second a more responsive council resolutions that truly reflect the interests of the students. I saw to it that after my political lecture, students were allowed to ask questions which would enhance student’s participation in the process. Soon I learned the technique on how to encourage even the tamest students to speak their minds and courageously ask serious questions. I made it a point that for every classroom, I would exude the aura of an educated common man whom they could rely and approach any time if elected.

In one of our campaign sorties, I promised the students that the newly constructed building of the Student Council belongs to them-our masters. They could come and visit any time of the day. Touche! I was already echoing President Magsaysay’s populist platform. In that particular campus, I was surprised by the spontaneous reaction of the students everywhere I went. I was practically mobbed. Most of them kept on chanting my name short of a mantra. And mind you, I was only aiming for the position of school senator not the presidency. Soon I became more and more familiar with the rules of school politics. I learned to smile even with people whom I secretly hated before. I also learned the art of handshake and of course how could I forget, the eye contact. In short, I quickly developed into a traditional politician or trapo.

Finally the big day came. In some designated precincts at the main campus, I was the frontrunner in the senatorial race. Unfortunately, when the votes from the distant campus arrived, I was surprised. I didn’t get any vote! It was a clear miscalculation on my part because I failed to visit that particular campus during the campaign. I simply relied on my political party to represent my advocacy. I learned that like local politics, campus politics too requires a personal touch with the voters. You have to socialize with them, laugh with them, eat with them and help them with their personal needs as students. Advocacy can take its backseat, what matters most is your presence as a candidate. And so from being on the top spot, I ended up at No. 8 in the senatorial race much to my dismay.

As predicted, I was the sole survivor of our political party. Our standard bearer, despite his superb experience in political strategy, lost his presidential bid in an unprecedented three-cornered fight. The voters simply dismissed him as someone too ambitious to become student government president. For my part, I suppose my youthful idealism helped. I convince majority of the school population about my sincerity and my desire to introduce honest-to-goodness reforms in the student council.

At the council, I was surprised to learn that I was practically alone in the wilderness. While there were three of us who belonged to the opposition bloc, the two seemed impervious to the numbers game in the council. They were more concerned with their own agenda. This however did not affect my mind-set as a robust school senator. Soon, the distribution for various committees was announced. It was the administration’s first declaration of war against the opposition. The three of us ended up in a ditch. I was assigned to head the inutile Ethics Committee. Obviously, I was under the impression that ethics and politics are one and the same. Every time I called for a committee hearing no one cared to appear much less attend the meetings. Sensing that I was furious over the behavior of the council members, the council secretary advised me not to take things so seriously. I let it pass hoping that my next move would be a big splash.

My first initiative then as duly elected school Senator was to review the outdated internal rules of the council. I deemed it necessary before we could get down to business seriously. But the obstinate members of the administration party shoot down my proposal by majority vote. Once again, I was completely demolished. Since most of them were already on their second and third terms as school senators, they would invoke “self-invented” internal rules to shut me up. Some even accused me of grandstanding during sessions when I would raise authentic parliamentary tenets. But I was up for the challenge. Having mastered the art of parliamentary rules by heart, I managed to score some points. In one of our council sessions, my finest hour I guess, I stood up and denounce the administration’s well-orchestrated move to discredit me. I lambasted the members of the majority for acting as rubberstamps of the council president. They listened intently and waited for their turns to hit me back but I managed to delay the proceedings until the session adjourned. This tactic went on for days. Soon, they too felt that all their proposals never reached the stage of voting because I would raise various well-grounded objections. The end result would always be a deadlock. I was bound not to compromise my advocacy as a school senator. At the risk of calling me a “pain in the ass” I stood my ground confidently. Not until the timely intervention of the council president. He was quite influential being the son of a local public official. More than that, he had the unwavering support of no less than the incumbent Congressman at that time who for some reason, was very much concerned with school politics.

Together with his parrot-like executive secretary, the Council president paid me a visit at my residence. After brief pleasantries, he made his point almost directly: “I want you to join my administration.” Sounds like the “real thing” Isn’t it? Politely, I laid down my position on the crisis besetting the Council. I expressed my frustrations over the actuations of majority of the members, who were his cohorts in the Council. Initially I said that we could never perform our job as Council members because the majority was more concerned on party affiliations than principles. I made it clear to him that all I really wanted was to elevate the stature of the Student Council as a premiere student organization. But more than this, I expressed my intention to make the Council a highly-competitive student body not only within the province but also all throughout the region. It may sound a far-fetch idea but I sincerely believe that with all the kidnapping and killing incidents reported in the media, all we could do to help our province was through academic ventures. But how could we do this I ask, since the majority refuse to support my ideas in the Council. He agreed and offered his hand as a gesture of unity. Then I proposed a compromise, sort of a win-win solution for the opposing sides. As a council member, I was fully aware of the privileges attached to my position as school senator. I vowed to use it in order to advance my advocacy. In exchange for my conditional support, he promised to approve and provide adequate funds for every school-related regional seminar during his term. For me, it was our opportunity to compete academically with other reputable schools within the region. This would also help boost our morale as true blue Basilenos in the field of academics.

True to his word, the council president brought unity within the council. Except for a few parliamentary outbursts, sessions were now more dignified and peaceful. The quality of deliberations too improved because of my persistence to raise the standards of council debates. From then on, the Council became a pro-active student organization. Later, owing to the nature of our position, we were also designated to represent the school in various academic seminars within the region. Most of the time, our team would go head to head with student leaders from different universities and colleges in Mindanao. Each and every encounter would be intense, exciting and challenging. Because of our legislative training in the Council, I earned the monicker as the “outstanding parliamentarian” in one of the seminars we have attended. These were only some of the Council’s modest achievements in a span of one year but it really meant a lot to me. It was, after all, the reforms I envisioned for my humble alma mater. I just hope that the seeds we have planted fell on fertile grounds and will ultimately bear fruit in the years to come.

Indeed, experience is a great teacher. I learned so much about politics because of this brief yet exciting experience. For one, I am glad that during my journey as a student leader I never compromised my principles and ideals in favor of personal gains. I managed to come out of the snake pit called “politics” unscathed, uncorrupted and morally intact. But of course, that was school politics. I still keep in touch with some of my friends who are now enjoying the real game of fame and power. I must admit though, that some influential quarters in our town encourage me to throw my hat in the political arena for next year’s local elections. I suppose they think, and I agree with them, that youthful idealism will help foster the much needed reforms in the local political landscape.. But I turned them down for personal reasons. After years of contemplation, I still prefer to work in the academe and hopefully join the noblest profession someday. (And earn the much coveted A-T-T-Y before my name!) I have made my choice, and I know it is the right one. Till next time!

The Honorable Doy Laurel

"Ang Bayan Higit sa Lahat"

I am a bit finicky when it comes to local television shows these days. The best television programs usually start at eleven o’clock in the evening until the wee hours of the morning. But there is one television show at noontime which I hardly miss especially during Saturdays. I have to confess then, that I am an avid viewer of ABS-CBN’s noontime game show Game Ka Na Ba. Not because it stimulates my mind the way the Weakest Link does, but I find it very entertaining. Saturday episodes are my favorite because I get to watch celebrity contestants spill their brains into bits of pieces on national television. Entertaining isn’t it? Celebrity contestants never fail to amuse me when they answer questions confidently only to find out that it was the most outrageous answer that anyone with basic education could imagine. They are indeed entertainers! And so one fateful Saturday, I got fortunate to see celebrity Denise Laurel play. Damn, she is pretty but I wonder though if she could hurdle the questions. When it was her turn, game show host Edu Manzano fired the question: Sino ang bise presidente ni Pangulong Corazon Aquino? To my surprise, she just smiled with a little bit of "pacute" facial expression. Absolutely clueless, Chairman Edu finally gave the answer which caused a shocking reaction for Denise. It was her grandfather. All that Denise could utter were the words, “Sori Papa DoY!” Yes, she should be sorry not only because she happens to be the granddaughter of a statesman and she can't answer that simple question, but more so, as an educated Filipino.

When Senator Mar Roxas announced his avowed withdrawal from the 2010 presidential race in favor of the much talked about Senator Noynoy Aquino, almost everyone at Club Filipino went home teary-eyed. As soon as I learned about this momentous event, I can’t help but remember the words of British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge when he said that all news is old things happening to new people. True, because somewhere in the pages of our history, there was once an honorable man who exemplified supreme sacrifice as a public servant. A man who chose to set aside his dreams and personal ambitions when he stepped aside and agreed to have Cory Aquino run for President against the incumbent President Ferdinand Marcos under his own political machine. That man is no other than the late Salvador H. Laurel or simply “Doy” to many.

Doy Laurel undoubtedly served his country well for almost thirty years occupying various high governmental positions. His devotion to public service had been tested when he was Vice-President, Senator, Assemblyman, Prime Minister, Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Chairman of Philippine Centennial Commission. A UP law graduate with Master of Laws and Doctor of Juridical Science from Yale Law School, Doy Laurel was a brilliant law practitioner and founder of the Citizens’ Legal Aid Society of the Philippines (CLASP). His commitment to help the poor, such as rendering free legal assistance to indigent litigants through CLASP, was further reinforced when he authored five (5) “Justice for the Poor Laws” (a.k.a. Laurel Laws) while in the Senate. Because of his audacious dedication to the causes of law and justice, Doy Laurel was given international recognition as the “Most Outstanding Legal Aid Lawyer of the World for 1976.” But despite all of his achievements and recognition as a public servant, Doy Laurel’s legacy as the beacon of light during the darkest days of martial rule has received not much attention from contemporary history writers. More than this, his sacrifices and efforts to help install the Aquino government after the February Revolution were brushed aside and spurned by President Cory Aquino’s “inner circle.” Let us then revisit his legacy as one of the political titans of Philippine politics.

After the assassination of Senator Ninoy Aquino on August 21, 1983, anti-Marcos protest all over the country soon escalated more than anyone could ever imagine. The opposition bloc, although splintered in many ways, saw this as an opportunity to consolidate its forces and challenge President Marcos’ Kilusan Bagong Lipunan candidates in the 1984 legislative election. To solidify the splintered opposition parties, Doy Laurel painstakingly spearheaded the formation of the United Nationalist Democratic Organization (UNIDO) as the umbrella organization of various opposition parties such as the well-entrenched Liberal Party, Raul Manglapus’ National Union of Christian Democrats and Nene Pimentel’s Partido Demokratikong Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan. His tremendous and tedious efforts to unify the opposition against the Marcos-controlled Batasan Pambansa proved to be successful when majority of UNIDO candidates won in the 1984 legislative elections. The opposition then seized this victory to challenge the mandate of President Marcos in a presidential election. Ever conscious of his image as a benevolent dictator in the prying eyes of the international community, President Marcos had no choice but to seek for a fresh mandate from the people. And the only way to this, as the opposition would like to believe, was to call for a snap election. But who could possibly run much less win, against the incumbent President Marcos? To many, Doy Laurel was the logical candidate for the opposition following UNIDO’s victory during the 1984 legislative elections. But some quarters believed that Cory Aquino, owing to her popularity as the widow of a slain martyr, was the right candidate to defeat President Marcos in the polls. Nonetheless, Cory kept her silence amidst the overwhelming clamor pushing her to run for the presidency in the event President Marcos calls a snap election. Meanwhile, Doy Laurel, the driving force of the opposition, moved quickly to unify anti-Marcos camps to push for his candidacy as the opposition’s standard bearer. But before accepting any nomination from the UNIDO, Senator Doy wanted to make sure that no other presidential candidate would run outside of UNIDO. He was convinced that, given the peculiar circumstances at that time, the opposition could never risk of having two presidential candidates for the opposition bloc. He feared that with two presidential candidates, the end result would be catastrophic for they would split the vote of the opposition and eventually lose the election. President Marcos, with all government powers and resources at his disposal, could simply smash them in the polls with impunity. Clearly, the overriding objective then was for the opposition to have a single candidate backed up by a potent political machine such as UNIDO. Such was the opposition’s master plan.

Amidst rumors that Cory Aquino might eventually run for the presidency, Senator Doy wanted a confirmation straight from the horse’s mouth. And he did. To avert any possibility of a divided opposition, Senator Doy advised Cory that even with a single opposition candidate the chances of the dominant opposition against the incumbent were slim. Cory then assured Doy “more than a dozen times” that she would never seek nor accept any nomination to run for the presidency. Unbeknownst to Senator Doy, that false assurance made by Cory was only the first among the series of reneged promises which will adversely rock his political career in the years to come. In a convention which was widely considered as the most colorful nominating convention in contemporary Philippine political history, Senator Doy Laurel was eventually nominated as UNIDO’s presidential candidate. To prove her point, Cory even made an appearance and delivered a speech supporting the opposition’s presidential candidate to run against President Marcos. Expectedly, to reassure the American government of domestic political and economic stability, President Marcos announced on November 3, 1985 via American television that he was conceding to the opposition’s call. He desperately announced that snap elections will be held on February 7, 1986.

Senator Doy’s high hopes to become the opposition’s leading candidate in the 1986 snap election soon waned. Cory had a change of heart. Two days after President Marcos announced the date of the snap election, Cory suddenly heard the voice of God while praying at the Pink Sisters Convent. Out of the blue, Cory announced her divine anointment from above and offered herself for the presidency if presented with a million signatures. The fact of the matter is, after the blatant assassination of Senator Ninoy Aquino, the Aquino family and the opposition continued to inflame the hearts and minds of the people by enhancing the martyr’s image. Anti-Marcos rallies were soon everywhere. Most of the time, Cory Aquino would deliver speeches and poignantly narrated how her husband suffered in the hands of a repressive dictator. Overnight, from an obscure plain housewife, Cory became more and more visible in anti-government demonstrations calling for the restoration of democracy. She promised, as she always does, to continue the legacy of her husband. Obviously, it did not take too long for Don Chino Roces to gather the required number of signatures when Cory imposed this as a condition for her to run as president.

Meanwhile, amidst this turn of events, Senator Doy laurel was already busy campaigning as the opposition’s standard bearer under UNIDO. As soon as he heard the news, he immediately went out of his way and met Cory at her house on Times Street. Senator Doy tried to dissuade Cory from running. He told her that she should not run and instead remain as the people’s symbol against the perceived forces of evil. “Let me do the fighting and take the blows for you,” said Senator Doy but Cory remained unperturbed.

Fearing that the Marcos government would eventually collapse and no definite opposition candidate yet, Cardinal Sin decided to mediate between Doy and Cory. Initially, Cardinal Sin never asked anyone of them to withdraw from the race. He warned them however, that should both of them run for the presidency the people will be sad because surely, both of them will lose in the snap elections. In the fifth meeting held at Puyat residence in Quezon City, Cory finally spoke of her true intention in running for the presidency. Accordingly, she was not really interested in running the government. All she wanted was to be a mere instrument or symbol to remove the ailing dictator and restore democracy. She then offered Doy the Prime Ministership and promised to step down after two years or so. In addition, Cory offered “thirty percent (30%) of the Cabinet to Doy and the remaining seventy percent to be appointed after prior consultation between them.” Present during this meeting were, Doy’s elder brother Senator Sotero Laurel, Cory’s daughter Ballsy and the late Vicente Puyat. Based on the truthful account of Doy Laurel, the agreement was reduced in writing and Cory initialed them item by item “on the left margin of the document.” Doy, believing that he had a better right to be the opposition’s presidential bet, simply asked for more time to decide.

Indeed, it was perhaps the hardest and the most crucial decision that Doy Laurel could ever make during his lifetime as a public servant. Alone in a beach house, Doy wrestled with the following questions which will determine his decision to step down in favor of Cory: I knew Ninoy well. His word was good. But I did not know Cory well enough. Could I trust her? Would her word be good as Ninoy’s? Or was she a mere instrument of her family interests and her hidden advisers? But more importantly, Doy remembered the sacrifices of his esteemed father, the late President Jose P. Laurel, when he chose to gave way to Ramon Magsaysay to go against the ailing incumbent President Quirino. Doy pondered, What would my father do if he were in my place? How would he resolve this dilemma? It was at this moment that Doy made the historical decision to step down in favor of Cory Aquino all for the termination of dictatorship and restoration of democracy.

The following morning after his brief sojourn at the Matabungkay beach house, Doy went back to Manila to meet Cory. During that meeting, Doy laid down his cards. He told Cory that he had decided to give way to her but on one condition: She should run under the dominant opposition party, UNIDO. But proud Cory sensed sinister motives on Doy’s proposal. She declined to run under UNIDO! This turn of events left Doy with no other choice but to run. In his statement before the press, Doy passionately exclaimed, “I can sacrifice myself. I can sacrifice the presidency. But I cannot sacrifice the people who have suffered so much and worked so hard all these years , risking life, liberty, even honor, to put up the political machine that is now capable of toppling the Marcos dictatorship.” That same day, Doy Laurel filed his certificate of candidacy with the COMELEC as UNIDO’s standard bearer for the upcoming snap elections.

But then again, Cory changed her mind. This time she was willing to run under UNIDO. She further reinstated her proposal that she will be a mere ceremonial president in the event they will win the elections. In a matter of time, both camps finalized their agreement. In Doy’s account what transpired that day was this: Cory then turned into my two brothers and said, “i-formalize na ninyo and ating pinagkasunduan. But kuya Pito replied, Hindi na kailangan i-formalize pa iyan. Lalong masakit lamang kapag hindi tinupad. I reminded Cory that she already initialed all the items we had agreed upon on a piece of paper at the residence of Teng Puyat. Maliwanag na maliwanag na naman an gating pinagkasunduan. Ang mahala’y and nilalaman ng puso.” On that same day, Cory and Doy went to the COMELEC and filed their respective certificates of candidacy as the official candidate of UNIDO.

After the February revolution, Cory and Doy were catapulted to power as President and Vice-President respectively. Whether Cory and Doy truly won the snap elections still remains a disputed question to this very day. But in truth and in fact, the 1986 snap elections had been clearly superseded by virtue of the people power revolution. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that none of Cory’s supposed pre-election promises to Doy were ever implemented. In less than a month after the EDSA People Power revolution, Cory Aquino “unilaterally” abolished the 1973 Constitution and installed a revolutionary government via Proclamation No. 3.From the legal standpoint, although the snap elections were held under the auspices of the 1973 (Marcos) Constitution, Cory and Doy however, finished the electoral race outside of it. Consequently with the abolition of the 1973 Constitution, the Batasan, the Supreme Court and all national (including the Prime Ministership) and local positions were likewise abolished. For a time and prior to the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, Cory Aquino wielded extraordinary powers. Doy Laurel, Cory’s Vice-President maintained that he was never consulted nor made to participate in any of the decision-making process leading to the establishment of a revolutionary government. Vice-President Doy Laurel, despite his brilliance and not to mention, the sacrifices he made for the country, was clearly out shadowed by Cory Aquino’s cordon sanitaire. To make matters even worse, Vice-President Laurel had undeservingly earned the sobriquet of being a “wimp” under the Aquino administration. Up to his dying day, Vice-President Doy Laurel maintained that Cory Aquino had broken her promises to share power with him if they won. Cory Aquino on the other hand believed that the revolutionary nature of her rise to power had given her direct mandate to rule. “Whatever happened to all those promises you made, Cory? Said Doy. Cory then gave a halting reply, “I was told…that the EDSA revolution…erased all those promises.”

I never met nor talked to Vice-President Salvador H. Laurel in person. But there is one specific encounter which I would like to share. Back in 2001, VP Doy was invited as guest in Cito Beltran’s ANC television program. There, VP Doy exuded his brilliance as a lawyer and a public servant. His razor-sharp intellect was very much intact despite years of retirement from actual public service. I got lucky when Cito Beltran allowed viewers to ask questions thru text messages. And so I hurriedly framed my question but I was not quite sure what to ask so I settled for a simple one: What was your favorite subject in law school? I was elated when the text message was read by Cito and VP Doy politely answered, “Thank you Chris, mine would have to be constitutional law.” The mere mention of my name alone was enough to cause shock waves in my ears. Then he recounted his law school adventures and his teaching career when he was still professor at Lyceum Law School. I was surely elated by his account. Then he proceeded to talk about what truly happened after the EDSA revolution and the way he was treated during the Aquino administration. I couldn’t help but question what made Cory Aquino pushed a brilliant and statesman-like Vice-President away from her administration. Now, I could safely say I know the answer: a symbol is a symbol, no more, no less. I hope Denise Laurel and other Filipinos who suffer from the same amnesia or apathy will find time to remember a person named Salvador “Doy” H. Laurel-a true statesman and a nationalist.

Sources from my mini-library:

The Anti-Marcos Struggle by Mark Thompson
The Impossible Dream by Sandra Burton
Neither Trumpets Nor Drums: Summing Up the Cory Government by Salvador H.Laurel

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

"Wala sa design yan, its the substance!"

I never imagined that my blog would be nominated much less chosen as one of the finalists for the upcoming Philippine Blog Awards. But they just did, and it makes me proud to be a Filipino cyberspace writer. And to my worthy opponents in the advocacy category, best of luck guys!

In lieu of this, I express my utmost gratitude to Ms.Vivian, Librarian of the Adamson University Thomas More Law Library for the nomination. The 10 finalists for best advocacy blog are as follows:

1.Autism Society Philippines
2.CyberRon
3.DISCOURSES OF A FREE MIND
4.Fide Quarens Intellectum
5.Filipino Deaf from the Eyes of a Hearing Person
6.Filipino Freethinkers
7.Foreclosure Philippines
8.Gloria Macapagal Arroyo RESIGN!
9.Greenpeace Southeast Asia
10.Nurses Notes

The awarding ceremony for Luzon will be held on October 9 at PETA Theatre, Quezon City; while the ceremonies for Visayas and Mindanao will be held on October 18 at Ayala City Sports, Cebu Business Park and October 24 at Pearlmont Hotel, Limketkai Drive, Cagayan de Oro City respectively.

A warm thank you to the organizers of Philippine Blog Awards!!!

Mabuhay ang mga Pinoy Bloggers!!! Goodluck! Fingers crossed!

Me and Ferdinand Edralin Marcos

I woke up one morning and told myself to write something personal and post it in my blog. And so I went to the coffee shop and did some thinking but it seems I was not in the mood to express my thoughts. Reading law books all night, commercial law in particular, somehow clogged my brain and I can do almost nothing but sleep. An hour later, I ordered another cup of coffee but still my mind was in shambles I just could not write anything. Then my third cup of freshly brewed coffee came. This time, it came with a hint which aroused my political hormones as a Filipino. The inscription in the cup states, “The Filipino is worth dying for.” Yes, after the death of a former president, the heroism of Ninoy Aquino is once again resurrected but sadly more like a fashion statement. Almost everyone these days, ranging from the commoners in the congested streets of Quiapo to the elitists living in Makati, have some sort of nationalistic and moral awakening of their own. These factors best explain why people mistakenly equate Noy Aquino for good presidency if elected in 2010. I can’t help but wonder if in their hearts and minds, people are truly convince that nationalism is an essential component to make this nation great. Or could it be a mere offshoot of former President Cory Aquino’s celebrated funeral?

Again, I may sound pessimistic and to some even a “kontrabida” in my writings. “How could you question Noy Aquino’s capacity to run the country?” I hear this all the time almost like a broken record. In fact in one of my articles, someone accused me of being “unFilipino” for allegedly “attacking the person of the late Senator Ninoy Aquino,” when I took the liberty to question his motives in his quest for the 1973 presidency. Obviously, that furious reader, who by the way considers himself as a liberal, failed to grasp the contextual history of my statement. There are also those, like my good friend BG, who tried to convince me to reconsider my position on Senator Noy. Amidst this brouhaha, my answer is simple: they missed the point. My brief essay on Senator Noy Aquino was clearly an objective analysis of the present political landscape. I attempted to present a bleak picture of Phillipine politics and the inescapable reality that in our political culture, personalities are preferred over principles and ideology. While I admit that my essay on Senator Noy Aquino was far from being an exhaustive and academic discourse on Philippine politics, truth be told however that I was able to hit the mark. To the critics, their respective judgments are clouded by their emotions which, apparently, betray objective kind of thinking in terms of electing leaders to lead this nation

Now back to the subject of nationalism. Modesty aside, long before the death of former President Coy Aquino, I have always been nationalistic and close friends can attest to this. But my deep-seated nationalism does not come from my humble education. Nor does it come from the beloved martyr Ninoy or saint Cory. It emanated from only one extraordinary person whom history has “arguably” adjudged as monster, dictator, and human rights violator. Brace yourself now, that person is Ferdinand Edralin Marcos (FM for brevity) the 6th President of the Philippine Republic.

In retrospect, I can still remember the snap election in 1986 when Cory Aquino challenged FM in the presidential arena. I was five (5) years old then when my father (a Marcos loyalist owing to his Ilocano blood as opposed to my mom who was a Coryista) brought with him campaign paraphernalia of Marcos-Tolentino. The campaign stickers were my favorite, so I happily pasted it in my improvised wood bicycle. And so while busy playing in the streets with friends, little did I know that I’m campaigning as well for FM in my own little way. I could still sing a portion of the catchy campaign jingle of Marcos-Tolentino to this very day. As a kid, I have no idea what martial law was or what could be the significance of Cory’s candidacy as president. My political slumber was however interrupted because my mother, the ever passionate SIBIKA teacher, taught me first-hand about Batas Militar and People Power revolution. My interest in history led me to witness how FM was being slaughtered in Phillipine history books and even encyclopedias. He was pictured out as the ultimate source of the ills and failures of our nation. For quite some time, my faith for FM dwindled until I reached the age of nineteen (19) years old.

Let me tell you a funny story which I fondly remember because it has something to do with my own political awakening. Not too long ago, I was the designated motorcycle driver of my parents. My duty was to fetch them every Sunday afternoon in church after bible study. And so, one fine Sunday afternoon my father told me to fetch him at exactly 2pm because he had other engagements so I have to come early. When I arrived, he told me to wait in the church basement because the bible study was not yet over. As I went to the pastor’s library, I saw an old little book among the gigantic biblical references on the shelf and so I got interested. As I took it out from the shelf, I was struck by the title which reads, “Notes on the New Society,” signed Ferdinand E. Marcos. So I browsed the book and after a while I caught myself hooked with his discourses on martial law hand in hand with the structural reforms under the "New Society." By this time, I was convinced to commit a petty crime. Whatever it takes, I want to continue reading the book. And so while no one was watching except God of course, I stole the rare masterpiece. I was bound never to return it even at the risk of police torture if caught red handed. But God moves in mysterious ways, the pastor saw me as I was about to leave the premises with the book in my pocket. I instantly gave lawyer-like explanations and soon the pastor realized the irony of it all: a political book in a church library? “It’s all yours Pey!” said the addled pastor. Without much further ado, I grabbed the book in the jugular so to speak. And so I studied the book and read it over and over until I fully understood its complex yet remarkable content. Soon, I was already assiduously debating with my mother much to her dismay. Now, apart from my other Marcos’ book collection which were mostly acquired from obscure bookstores in Avenida (i.e. Tadhana, The Democratic Revolution in the Philippines and Revolution from the Center), the “Notes on New Society” has always been a standout in my mini-library.

If there is one thing which separates Ferdinand Marcos from other Philippine presidents, it has to be his sense of patriotism. He was a genius alright, we all know that, but has anyone from this generation knows his ideology by heart? To the uninitiated, the idea behind the “New Society” was based on an ideology that emphasized individual and national discipline, and the sacrifice of personal liberties in the name of economic development. As a student of political science I know for a fact that in any polity practice often fails theory. The way I see it, President Marcos clearly went overboard with the implementation of martial law. His supposed radical yet noble reforms to cure the ills of a sick society were practically miscalculations and that I have to give in. But for the benefit of the youth of my generation let me tell you this: an objective approach on President Marcos’ sense of nationalism will present an alternative diagnosis as to who we really are, and what we can do as Filipinos to help our country. History books coupled with media attacks are quick to condemn Marcos without even explaining his idea of nationalism which prompted him to declare martial law on September 21, 1972. In fact, one of the major television networks blames Ferdinand Marcos up to this day for the Plaza Miranda bombing despite strong evidence to the contrary. (Even Senator Jovito Salonga, a victim of that incident and feisty critic of FM, attest to this fact. See: Salonga’s autobiography: A Journey of Struggle and Hope). Is this what you call fair or unbiased reporting in journalistic parlance? If President Marcos is evil in the eyes of history, certainly the late Senator Ninoy Aquino is no saint at all. History writers tend to be selective in their writings on martial law and the EDSA people power revolution, but to assure the reader, with Senator Ninoy Aquino I must say I walk the extra mile in my readings. I do not intend to justify the excesses committed during martial law like the pending cases on human rights violations. Nor it is my intention to downplay the heroic deeds of Senator Ninoy Aquino and former President Cory Aquino as defenders of democracy. To defend Ferdinand Marcos against the gargantuan tide of history entails more than writing a piece about him. I vowed that someday when the chips are down, I may be able to write a book about this man who loved his country so much even at the risk of historical condemnation. Like most of you, I too have my own way of understanding what nationalism is. I too as a Filipino, have my own justifications on why I adhere to a certain kind of ideology that influences my kind of thinking. But one thing is clear, at least to me, with the passage of time Ferdinand Marcos to this day stands tallest in the pantheon of Filipino Presidents.

The present nationalistic hullabaloo is at best superficial. I think it has something to do with our colonial attitude aptly called, “ningas kugon.” From my observation, today, nationalism is nothing more but a fashion statement. Ask anyone, the youth in particular, what Ako Mismo or Ako ang Simula dog tags truly means, and the answer is quite pathetic but true: “Sunod sa uso lang pre!” But for those who are hard core nationalist like my fellow writers in the blogosphere, I admire them and it makes me proud to be a Filipino. Writing is such a powerful medium to expose your idea on nationalism because it transcends borders. Let me then end my discourse with a thought. Nationalism does not depend on age, education, profession or status in life. Whether you are a lawyer, doctor, teacher, engineer or even just a lowly clerk in government offices, you are a Filipino. You have the power to change society in your own simple way. If in the end Noy Aquino or Erap Estrada inspires you to be a true nationalist, then be my guest, express your thoughts and spread the word!

PBA0914s26rn

Liberal Party for President

There seems to be great expectations coming from some sectors of society that Senator Noynoy Aquino will introduce a different kind of leadership if elected as president. The present clamor for change brought about the death of a former president has put the good senator on the center stage of Philippine politics. Like his heroic parents who arguably fought dictatorship under the aegis of democratic ideals, Senator Aquino is hard pressed to continue the fight. Sink or swim however, he has to take on the challenge. I do not want to sound pessimistic but I have the uneasy feeling that unless Senator Aquino will be able to show his accomplishment as a legislator, He will never get my vote!

Don’t get me wrong, but in Philippine politics, voters choose their leaders not on the basis of platforms or democratic ideals but on the strength of popularity. Politicos readily recognize the need to be popular at any cost, all in the name of political power. From electoral surveys and television commercials, politicians invest millions of pesos just to infiltrate the minds of the bakya crowd which represents the majority of the voting population. I always deplore these kinds of political gimmickry because it does not only deceive the underprivileged segment of our society it also belittles the role of the masses as particles of sovereignty. Indeed, poverty is one of the most recycled issues deliberately used by politicos to gain political victory. As the saying goes, “necessitous men are not free men.” This practice etched deeply in our damaged political culture is at best pathetic circular if we continue to act as passive voters.

Let me cite my personal experience as a voter. For two consecutive presidential elections, I had always been on the side of Aksyon Demokratiko party founded by no less than the late Senator Raul Roco. He was also the standard bearer of said party during the 1998 and 2004 presidential elections. I consistently voted for him not on the basis of his capacity to win as president but because of his principles and accomplishment as an outstanding legislator. Expectedly, my candidate lost twice in his presidential bid. This experience, no matter how distasteful to my political sensibilities, has not changed my convictions on how to choose political leaders in the succeeding elections. And believe it or not, except for the senatorial posts, my candidates hardly win the elections both in the local and national tiers.

Now focus on the present political landscape. I think the choice on whether to vote for Senator Noynoy Aquino or perhaps Celebrity Duets champion Bayani Fernando as president must be seen in this light. Apart from being a symbol or icon of change, voters must look into the track record of Senator Noynoy Aquino as a legislator and whether he truly represents the ideology of his political party. For one, the Liberal Party has always been a politically potent machine with clear-cut ideological foundations. Its past and present membership speaks for itself. I have always respected liberal stalwarts such as Franklin Drilon and Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan, both as lawyers and distinguished legislators. But what does a Liberal truly stands for? What happens if, come 2010 we will be having a Liberal sitting in the Malacanang? I think this is the proper way to look at things when we elect political leaders and that is, principles over personalities.

When we talk about liberalism, the first thing that comes to mind is the concept of freedom. With the emergence of political parties by virtue of the multi-party system under the 1987 Constitution, the concept of freedom has evolved tremendously in the political mainstreams. I wonder whether these political parties and their members truly understood what freedom really is and how it blends with the vast powers of government if placed in actual practice. I understand the arguments of those who supported the multi-party system when this was deliberated during the 1986 Constitutional Commission that framed the present constitution. While the multi-party system sought to democratize political parties and in effect giving the voters a myriad of options or alternatives during elections, the vitality of this mechanism however proved the exact opposite. In trying to rectify and erase the vestiges of the Marcos regime, the multi-party system was nothing but an affirmation of a damaged political culture. Political parties in the Philippines, except perhaps the established Liberal Party, come and go. After elections, they just disappear (some join or merge with the administration party for obvious reasons) only to resurface again during elections.

With liberalism as espoused by the Liberal Party, the concept of freedom is absolutely non-negotiable. In essence this is what liberalism is all about and some people from different walks of life could identify themselves with this basic democratic idea. In one of his essays, German political analyst Ronald Meinardus describes in brief, what liberal thinking is all about, “Liberal governance always strives to promote and increase the freedom of all members of society. It aims at establishing a framework that permits the citizens to manage their lives according to their own preferences. Government should restrain from controlling citizens and instead, respect and defend individual rights. Liberal governance implies that everyone be treated equally regardless of race, social status, views and beliefs or other personal preferences. Here the religious factors comes in, arguably a most disruptive element in many parts of the world. In a liberal order, state and religion are separated.” Theoretically, liberalism posits two school of thoughts on the concept of freedom. According to Dr.Meinardus the most prominent of the two competing thoughts is the one that elevates the postulates of freedom over state powers. Thus, "One group of liberal advocates defines freedom in a more narrow fashion focusing on the promotion of liberty against state power. These liberals, who in the United States have come to be termed "libertarians" argue that the state poses the main threat to freedom. Therefore they argue, freeing the citizen from government regulation should top any liberal agenda. Liberalism obviously contributed to the growth of democracy all over the world. In historical terms, the great liberal achievements have been made the spread of democracy, the establishment of the rule of law, respect of human rights and last but not the least, the expansion of the market economy.

Unlike his father, Senator Noynoy Aquino is a man of unquestionable character and motive to run for the presidency. Does he have what it takes to maneuver the ship of state towards the right direction? That question to me is somewhat a grey area for now. I have not yet seen nor heard closely Senator Noynoy Aquino’s views on various issues concerning freedom of expression versus governmental powers, freedom of religion versus governmental regulation, and of course individual liberties. I also would like to hear him debate with his fellow presidential contenders on various pre-election fora like the ones sponsored by major television networks in the country today. I am sure the good senator has good insights on political, economic and social issues. Aside from the usual speeches on the advancement of democratic ideals, I have yet to see him defend democracy in the truest sense of the word. How about his position on Constitutional change or perhaps the Visiting Forces Agreement? These are only some of the pressing issues he has to contemplate as early as now. I do not consider myself as an absolute liberal nor a conservative type of citizen. But part of my ideology leans toward the protection of individual liberties under a stable constitutional democracy. Whether Senator Noynoy Aquino or the Liberal Party represents my kind of politics or thinking is a question that remains to be seen in the next few days. Abangan!

Some Thoughts on Morality

Have you ever wondered why there is such a thing as right and wrong? I’m sure you did. But I bet, you never bothered to inquire further much less visit the nearest library and do some philosophical or religious readings. “Why bother, It’s not worth my time” a friend of mine said. Then he continued, this time with a pragmatic and ringing response, “From where I sit chap, the idea could have been implanted in my head since I was born.” I was initially taken aback by his answer. I told myself he was supposed to be inquisitive if not a skeptic like me. I should know this for a fact. For several times, I had engaged in a heated cockfight with him way back in law school. It took me a while to realize that, like his indecisive response, his Catholic faith too suffers with the same foundational cracks. At that precise moment, all I can do was to sympathize with him. I felt sad because I have known him as a devout Catholic and a spirited defender of faith. Yet, when his reasons on faith are put to stringent test, I can obviously see the inconvenient irony. Like a mentos candy, his faith appears to be solid and cool on the outside but breaking down inside. Pardon the pun, but I can think of no better analogy than this. Well, for a time aren’t we all? I will not try to second guess your response if the question is presented before you. Tough issues on faith and life are not the most convenient topic to be talked about in coffee shops or dinner tables. They are often viewed as utterly boring and anticlimactic. In fact, when I raise this issue in one of our drinking sessions, a drinking buddy of mine pounded on the table and said, “Pare, what are you talking about, aren’t we suppose to have fun? Yes, alcohol and faith are not perfect buddies. At least, I got the point this time.

In the philosophical arena, when a well-informed atheist wants to argue that God does not exist or that He is simply a pigment of our imagination, his arguments appear to be so convoluted for anyone bereft of philosophical consciousness on the topic. I find it frustrating when Christians shy away with these kinds of intellectual objections. And to make it more candid, a typical Christian will respond by saying, “God forgives you bother” or that “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus!” BAM! That goes straight to my stomach. Pathetic isn’t it? My point here is simple. As Charles Colson puts it, “The Bible commands us to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. If we fail, we will find it increasingly difficult to present the gospel and we will lose influence in the culture.” In my essay entitled, “Why I am still a Christian” I dealt with the existential aspect of faith and reason to support my Christian beliefs. I narrated in part my supposed intellectual doubts on the meaning of life, the origin of morality and ultimately, the existence of God. By way of conclusion, I encourage the readers that it is perfectly normal to encounter doubts and objections if only to strengthen their Christian faith. Through doubts we continuously pursue the truth.

Going back to my friend in law school, what does he mean when he said that “the idea could have been implanted in my head since I was born”? Seen in the philosophical context, his response raises two possible assumptions. He seems to accept that there is some kind of a moral standard from which to distinguish right from wrong. But am I suppose to infer based on his response that that he posits a moral law giver, that is God as the source or revealer of that moral standard? Or can morality exist apart from God? The problem however is not as simple as these two assumptions.Time and again, philosophers and defenders of faith wrestled with this question. The usual old-age arguments for or against God’s existence could be summed up in four major points; (1) the argument from (or to) design, (2) the first cause argument, (3) the argument of morality, and (4) the existence of evil. Of these philosophical arguments, I find the case for morality as the most persuasive evidence to prove the existence of a deity. Not because it is the easiest one amongst the usual objections, but my preference has something to do with my own existential and philosophical journey.

In discussing morality, one cannot simply set aside God in the picture. God as the utmost revealer of right and wrong, provides us with a moral point of reference or a starting point from which to establish our meaning and purpose in life.To put it more bluntly, without Him, everything in this world is meaningless. My point then is this. If God is not in the picture in terms of defining what morality is, what then could be our moral framework from which to distinguish right from wrong? The impact of a Godless society is of course terrifying and very dangerous. How then can Adolf Hitler justify his horrible actions when he exterminated the Jews during the World War II? Or that of Josef Stalin, when he masterminded the large-scale murder of his own people? Were they appealing to some sort of a moral justification for their actions? The answer is yes. This is where the term morality becomes a free-for-all concept for everyone to enjoy. Now then, what could be the moral point of reference for saying that the Holocaust was a moral act? Hitler and Stalin as masters of their own fate clearly subscribed to the atheist worldview-the absence of belief in the existence of God. They deplore Christian theism and religion in general, as something that hampers human progress. Nietzsche for instance viewed religion as the nadir of human progress because it elevated such concepts as morality, repentance, and humility. To him, we cannot build a civilization of power based on these Christian virtues. Now how about that as an objective moral criterion? Logically, having no point of moral reference (except perhaps Nietzsche idea of civilization) to arrive in an objective moral standard, Hitler and Stalin decided to invent their own system of right and wrong. A system to be determined solely on the basis of personal taste or individual preference. Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky was right when he said that without God everything is permissible. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to discern the ramifications of a Godless society. Without God, we cannot have objective moral guidelines to follow. What we have is a purely subjective discernment on where to distinguish right from wrong.

Now, lest I be accused of bias, let us assume for the sake of argument that God is not an essential element in determining right and wrong. Otherwise stated, take out God in the picture and see if we could at least have an objective standard for morality.

In his magnum opus Critique of Pure Reason, philosopher Immanuel Kant attempted to justify a system of right and wrong solely based on the power of reason. Simply put, a moral framework conceived apart from God. In Can Man Live Without God, renowned Christian apologist Dr.Ravi Zacharias simplified Kant’s two simple theses to support his proposition in this manner; First, he asserted that the rules of morality were rational and hence compelling for all rational beings…His foundational premise was clearly and without equivocation that human beings could arrive by unaided reason at a normative dictum for right and wrong. Second, he believed that mankind had within itself the capacity to perform that “ought” in its most noble demands upon the will. Therefore by our reason we can know what is right, and by our will we can do what is right. Under the first, the implication is clear: since the purported rules of morality are in essence reasonable, it is but proper for men as rational beings to follow such rules. The second however is a bit thorny when viewed philosophically. Like any other philosophical theories, Kant’s assertions have several consequent assumptions. It seemed that Kant had the illusion that man is basically good. And that man had an inherent capacity to distinguish right from wrong at first sight using pure reason alone as its basis. As correctly pointed out by Dr. Zacharias, in order to build a reasonable and coherent ethical theory, one must first establish the telos or the purpose and destiny of human life. To Christians, the so called telos is easier to find for there can only be one source of a man’s purpose and destiny in life, and that is God as the revealer of right and wrong. Now, non-believers may raise the argument on the need to establish initially the “purpose” and “destiny” in order to become moral in the theistic sense. The answer is a bit simple: one must have at least a valid starting point or a moral point of reference for one to discern an objective moral standard. That “ought” discernable by men as pointed out by Kant, was the same “ought” which prompted Hitler to exterminate the Jews en masse. That fateful event in human history was the logical consequence of a moral standard structured upon pure reason coupled with man’s desire to play God. The point I wish to make here is this, without the telos centered upon the character of God, any ethical theory will eventually lead to man’s destruction. I can see no point of commonality here, what we see are purely whimsical and subjective moral standards for everyone. What may be reasonable and moral for Hitler may not be reasonable for Mother Teresa isn’t it? In one of the gas ovens in Auschwitz, Hitler's words were inscribed-I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of conscience, imperious, relentless and cruel. Now how about that for a moral point of reference? Are we supposed to trust our own reasons here in determining what morality is? These are some intriguing questions that even Christians must consider in sperading the word of God to non-believers and ultimately to the atheists.

And so to my good friend, it has been my ardent wish that you will find time to read this article so you may be able to position your faith in the right direction. While I do not claim philosophical or intellectual superiority in this writing, but my point is crystal clear: the idea of morality points only to one direction as its primary source and that is God. Kant was right when he said that “man is a rational being.” In the same way, I dare say we Christians too are rational believers of God and followers of Christ. Let us converse about our Christian faith and defend God against intellectual or philosophical objections because in the end we are in fact honoring God as the ultimate source of man's wisdom. Make no mistake about this.

Note:
I highly encourage everyone to read Dr.Ravi Zacharias' critically acclaimed book Can Man Live Without God. This marvelous book basically "interrupted my philosophical slumber" as a Christian. I urge you to do the same.