religion, sexuality, Indonesia, Philippines, Ang Ladlad, gay marriage, Miyabi, Maria Ozawa

I'm not a religious person. I've tried - it'd be nice if there was life after death, and if a 70, 80-year span wasn't all we got - but I could never get over the suspicion I was deluding myself. I'm not an atheist - I don't think there's any more evidence that there isn't a God than that there is - but I think it's a shame that we're expected to take these things on Faith. That if there is a God, he or she or it is playing a silly cosmic game of poker with us, daring us to make our choice and take a punt. And the penalty for guessing wrong is, apparently, eternal torment!

Call me an agnostic.

Anyway, I can understand why people who are convinced that they've chosen THE TRUE RELIGION, and that all its precepts are true, want to try to save the rest of us - if you knew someone was going to roast in the fires of Hell, wouldn't it be incredibly selfish and uncaring just to condemn them to that fate without trying? And why they want their rules adopted more widely and imposed on others - even though if they thought about that from others' point of view, and if they were honest with themselves, they'd have to concede that they wouldn't like any other religion being imposed on them. Of course they can't contemplate the possibility that they're wrong without questioning their most fundamental beliefs. Which most people don't want to do.

That said, you'd hope that most religious people would also accept that for salvation a person has to come willingly. You can't force your beliefs on someone else without undermining the entire point of faith and free will. And, consequently, you'd have to accept that a theocracy - where the government uses the military might of the state to impose a religious doctrine (something which cannot, by definition, be defended with reason alone) on everyone within its borders - is not really a legitimate form of government. Because it involves imposing one person's arbitrary religious rules on another.

I raise this in the context of both Indonesia and the Philippines, both of which have recently used particular religious opinions to withhold basic rights from people who disagree with them.

In Indonesia, a Japanese porn star, Maria Ozawa ("Miyabi"), has cancelled her visit because of vigorous opposition from religious figures who've only just succeeded in having the government impose their beliefs on the country's filmmakers:

The cancellation comes weeks after Indonesia's parliament passed a law ordering filmmakers to uphold "religious, ethical, moral, and national cultural values." Movie makers are concerned a new censorship body outlined in the law will bring back the days of extreme censorship under the Suharto dictatorship, which was toppled more than a decade ago.

In the Philippines, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) has refused to give a party advocating for equal rights for gay Filipinos party-list status because:

The Comelec Second Division—composed of Ferrer and his fellow commissioners Lucenito Tagle and Elias Yusoph—last week rejected Ang Ladlad’s petition to be allowed to run as a party-list group in the May elections.

The division said the group’s espousal of same sex relations violated the Civil Code and Revised Penal Code’s provisions against immoral doctrines and those on decency and good customs.

Says who? Who defines these "immoral doctrines"? Some religion?

According to the article, it did so "because the practice of homosexuality offends morals". Homosexuality is also against Christian and Muslim faiths.

Say for the sake of argument that is true - so what? What on Earth does that have to do with the right of a group of people to peacefully campaign in their country for what they believe in? How would the religious groups like it if the gays were in charge and declined to register their political party because "the bigotry of their beliefs offends morals"?

Paul Farol, writing at Pinoy Buzz, is not sympathetic:

Now, morality issues aside, is there any real need for legislation that will benefit people of a particular lifestyle choice?  Are gay people really and truly marginalized?  Are gay people in the Philippines really discriminated against? What bills or laws will they seek to enact?

I am pretty sure Ang Ladlad has some sort of legislative agenda, like same-sex marriage... laws defining sexual discrimination... a law allowing gay couples to adopt children... a law getting the government to subsidize the treatment of people stricken with AIDS... and whatever else that gay people in other parts of the world are demanding. Does Ang Ladlad really have any kind of legislation in mind that is specifically tuned and responsive to the needs of Filipino gay people?

Obviously gay people are marginalised in a country where they're not allowed to get married, where discrimination against them based on their sexuality is lawful, where they are prevented from adopting children solely because of their sexuality, where medical treatment for something like AIDS is not subsidised like other illnesses because of some perceived connection with "immoral" behaviour - and why shouldn't they campaign to rectify this?

What other choices do they have? Just to sit back and accept second-class status and oppression because some religious person thinks it's mandated by their God?

Okay, so it's too much to ask someone who has made the decision to adopt a particular religious doctrine to consider that they might in some way be wrong - that maybe they picked the wrong religion (funny coincidence that the vast majority of religious people pick the same religion as their parents, isn't it?), or that maybe their religious leaders have misunderstood something their God/Prophet/Messiah actually said - but when the values in question are those about taking away another human being's rights, couldn't they keep them to themselves?

Demanding that "immoral" people don't enter the country, or be prevented from running for Parliament - that's taking it several steps too far.