Throughout Philippine history, there were many instances of revolts led by people who claimed to have heard God asking them to lead their fellowmen to war. One of them, Francisco Rivera, who, on October 1718, led thousands of the faithful in Tuguegarao Cagayan and installed himself ” Papa Rey” (Pope and King). However, the best example was Apolinario dela Cruz who led the longest revolt against Spanish rule. Hermano Pule, as he was popularly known, led a revolt which began in 1832 and ended with his death nine years after. Hermano Pule instigated the revolt after he reportedly met with God in a cave somewhere up north.
Fast forward to 2009 and we now read a similar story published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Pampanga governor Ed Panlilio, or “Manong Ed” to many of us proclaimed his intention of running for the presidency after he reportedly heard God’s instructions. I’m not questioning the validity of Manong Ed’s claims, but, let me ask some questions:
1. Who among these gods—Yahweh (YHWH) of the Jews, Allah SWT of the Muslims, God the Father of the Iglesia ni Kristo, El Shaddai of the charismatic Catholics or Krishna of the Hindus—gave him that instruction?
2. What was the concrete words that that God gave Manong Ed? Who, aside from Manong Ed, heard of that voice? Was it clearly an instruction to run as “pangulo” for Filipinos in 2010 or just for a re-election for “gobernador” for the “Pampangos” or “Pampanguenos”?
There are many sectors who opposed Manong Ed’s decision, solely on the basis of that Church doctrine which says ” For those for God is God’s and Caesars for caesar’s”, referring to the separation of worldly concerns with those spiritual. More than this though, let me ask these other questions:
1. Commenters over at NPR says that they’ll vote for Manong Ed because we need a moral president. Question—if Manong Ed wins, what version of morality would we then follow? Christian? Catholic? Islamic? Buddhist? or Hinduist? Would we change the Code of Ethics of Public Officials just to conform with the Catholic doctrine?
2. If, say a law is passed thru Congress that violates the Catholic stand on abortion or family planning, surely, we expect Manong Ed to veto that bill? Or, he’ll sign it?
3. If, say a law is passed prohibiting Catholic prayers in schools due to the “separation of the church and state” clause in our Constitution, what then? Would we expect Manong Ed to respect the Constitution and sign this law?
4. If, say a law is passed legalizing 2-balls or lottos in this country, would we then expect President Ed Panlilio to abide by the majority decision and not veto the bill?
5. Lastly, if say, the military leadership wants an all-out war against the Muslims or let’s just say that there arose an incident where a Catholic group rose up in arms over his administration, would Manong Ed have the courage to order a military strike and kill all these people?
I was once a seminarian, and I pretty much read chapters after chapters of the Holy Bible. And one thing is clear to me—when God speaks, it’s usually to order men to accomplish spiritual missions. It is to spread the Word (Logos). When did God became a political adviser? Certain instances, you’ll say. But, those words of instruction were meant to establish Israel as the Holy Nation of God. Politics only came into view when God instructed Samuel to get rid of Saul, who was ordered de-throned because he violated the holy precepts of the Almighty. Or, when God laid down the political organization for the Israelites. But, that was long ago. God does not speak to the Prime Minister of Israel now. And certainly, the only instance where God played a major or crucial role in world or even local politics was during the 12th or 15th century world. Question—are we now going back to that age where political appointees or elected leaders depend on the voice of God for legitimacy?
Popularity: 1% [?]
“Pampanga governor Ed Panlilio, or “Manong Ed” to many of us proclaimed his intention of running for the presidency after he reportedly heard God’s instructions.” – Pat M.
“…he heard God’s instructions.”
Is this exactly the words used by Panlilio, or just a play of words? There is a big difference between saying “responding to God’s higher calling” and “hearing God’s instructions”.
Could the exact link to Inquirer.net from which this info may have been based be provide please?
Because if this is not the exact words of Panlilio, there is a subtle stereotypical biasing (short of sarcasm) by the author towards one presidential aspirant in the way this blog entry portrayed Panlilio together with the names of some kind of leaders mentioned.
This is a familiar brand of emotional appeal but done subtly in a reverse psychology fashion.
Emotionally prejudging an aspirant before the real “game” has even started yet could defeat the public discourse and advocacy on the objectivity of voters in electing for a president. (Well at least, I presumed, objective FV “responsible bloggers” are seemingly advocating.)
Actually, the news article I read about it quoted the Padre as pretty much saying that God told him to. The article I saw wasn’t on Inquirer.net, I believe it was on the ABS-CBN news website. So apparently it isn’t a secret.
(Oh, and as an aside, if a commentator refers you to a particular news source, are you unable to find it without a hyperlink? Good news: they have this thing, they call it Google…works pretty good.)
Here’s a poser: If the Padre gets defrocked for persisting with his candidacy, what then? The whole righteous trope kind of goes right out the window, doesn’t it?
People like this Panlilio scare me, they really do.
Add to that good news, yahoo search, ask, and others. My point is that the author is paraphrasing the statement of a particular candidate in such a way as to put him in a negative perspective while the real game has not yet even started. In other words, objectivity is the thing I’m attempting to point out.
That poser may be or may not be a big challenging problem for the aspirant. But it is beside the point I’m trying to bring out.
The statement, paraphrased or quoted verbatim, is frightening either way. Patricio’s right. Presenting the candidate in a negative perspective is a challenge to that candidate, as well as all the others, to cut the b.s. and state his PLATFORM, PLEZ.
Ben K,
People like Villar scare me. What is the difference between running because the “big Ego” said to and “God” spoke to me. The latter could just be a voice in the head, an instinct, a gut feeling. To overlay it with Hitler and dark shadows is a bit over the top.
The current morality of greed, monies confiscated from the public coffers, enrichment on the backs of the poor, no distinction between right and wrong, is not hypothetical or imagined. How do you propose ending that well-embedded “morality”?
Joe
Good point, Joe. But I’d say the significant difference is people like Villar, Roxas, Escudero, etc. are self-referential. People like Hitler, Bush, Palin, Panlilio, etc. are the ones really playing on emotions, and worse, by invoking the ‘higher power’ that most people wouldn’t dare question, in fact, couldn’t even comprehend questioning. Call me over the top if you like (I prefer ‘hyperbolic’, it sounds more grown-up), but honestly, what is the actual difference between what Hitler said and what the Padre said?
Getting de-frocked increase electability.
Pinoys-in-Pinas have a thing for victimology.
Ben K,
Your argumentative technique is most effective. First you commend me on the point made, then whack me upside the head with a cast of characters out of the looney tunes of public service, Hitler, Bush, Palin and toss in Panlilio. There is guilt by association, for sure.
Actually, I don’t know Mr. Panlilio’s “true character”, so I must admit you may be right. But that still does not solve the problem that even a self-referential leader in a morality of greed is likely to refer self to greed. And round and round the merry-go-round goes.
The word “hyperbolic” is not in my personal dictionary, although I did find hyperbolemic, ala Twiggy, and “way over the top”, which is even more outrageous than your wonderful list. Can we throw in Stalin, too? Mao, alas, had some redeeming value, so I would object to him. Myanmar junta is good though. And that dude in North Korea . . . now is he is way far over the top, or what?
Joe
benk, show me a politician who doesn’t “play” on emotion and i’ll show you a loser. even the great lincoln had to be a “populist” to some degree in order to win.
i don’t know what you are trying to imply but mentioning hitler, bush and palin on the same breath sounds a little looney to me. what have the last two done against democracy?
Bencard,
You’re exactly right. I reached the same conclusion when I was analyzing my amusing campaign poster for my cat last night (go check it out on my blog). Here’s an example: Barack Obama and his “Yes We Can”. Vanilla-simple play on emotion. So, does that make me wrong? Not quite. The effective politician understands the value of appealing to both reason and emotion. Obama’s annoying little catchphrase is a derivative and intended to be a reminder of a clear set of stated principles. And it also happens to work on the small-minded, no doubt, or at least some of them. Hypothetically, if you were to ask B. Obama what “yes we can” means, he would be able to give you a coherent, substantial answer.
Point two: What have Bush & Palin done against democracy? Are you serious? How about regularly ignoring and/or actively subverting democratic processes and systems of check & balance and oversight? Patriot Act? Guantanamo Bay? Secret overseas CIA prisons? Any of this ringing a bell? Granted, Palin could only express her contempt on a very small stage (Alaska), but since she has publicly, and very forcefully, announced her unequivocal support for all Bush’s policies, there is no reason not to assume she is cut from the same cloth. The only thing that makes what I said ‘looney’ is that it ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
not quite, benk. the patriot act was a statute duly passed by the u.s. legislature. guantamo has been a u.s. military base since the end of the spanish-american war, and doubles as a holding facility for enemies of the u.s. captured in combat pending military prosecution (i personally think these dangerous captives are not entitled to civil or constitutional rights except as may be mandated by the geneva convention). cia secret prisons? an off-shot of 9/11 attack. extreme measures to which practically everyone, but the leftist loonies and the enemies within, got on board. most certainly, they kept us safe for the last 8 years so far, right?
with respect to palin, so you admit joe america’s assessment of your intent – to attribute “guilt by association”. but why hitler?
Hmm, I think I’ll take Eddie Villanueva over this Ed… I prefer a Protestant president… hehe
Another famous politician once wrote about how his aspirations reflected the intentions of the Almighty. The first part of the quote goes,
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator”
and of course the rest of it reads,
“by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
That was Adolf Hitler, in Mein Kampf. (Sorry, no link. It’s a book.) The will of God is a cheap commodity to politicians.
“The will of God is a cheap commodity to politicians.”
And in similar manner, emotionalism is a favorite bargain of subjectivity.
Well, Bush claimed God told him to go after Bin Laden and Gloria said God told her to run in 2004. J don’t believe Bush because God never told him where he could find Bin Laden but I believe Gloria because God gave her Garci’s cell phone number.
The best synthesis of all of that’s been commented here so far can be found in Star Wars mythology:
Jedi mind tricks work best on the weak-minded.
All of what politicians — and their publicists and media endorsers — try to pull are all just different forms of “Jedi mind tricks” at the end of the day.
They work because their audience is particularly susceptible to it.
It’s simple, really™
Science is the only cure for a weak mind!
Hurray Dawkins! :P
Or a lobotomy. :P
Answers to your questions which are rhetorical
1) Who else but the Almighty Ed Panlilio! Hubris is God too, you know!
2) Most likely “You are my beloved son!” BTW, all those who founded their own religion believe they had heard this.
1) The morality that evolved as an adaptation. Even the Pope says that morality isn’t just Catholic.
2) and 3) Moot question. Laypeople like Gloria Arroyo, Cory Aquino and FVR have proclaimed “Bible years”. Hey is the Bible the only sacred text around that can provide good instruction? Mrs Arroyo in an obvious attempt to get into good graces with the Iglesia ni Cristo even officially declared an Iglesia ni Cristo day. As a Catholic I would like to see Mrs Arroyo declare a Roman Catholic day and my Aglipayan relatives want to see an Aglipayan Day. Ed Panlilio however hasn’t been seen in photos with Catholic religious imagery unlike FVR, Cory, Erap and Gloria!
4) Lotto has been legal and is a state monopoly
5) Muslims have been massacred so many times under ALL PHILIPPINE PRESIDENTS including presidents publicly videoed receiving the Catholic Eucharist! Now only Quezon wasn’t publicly seen receiving Catholic sacraments until he was on his sickbed. Marcos, the Sainted Cory Aquino, the Protestant FVR, Erap and the Catholic Gloria HAVE ALL BEEN SEEN in public at prayer at a Roman Church. Now have we seen Gloria say prayers at an Aglipayan church? The supposedly Catholic Erap was shown eating pork near a ruined mosque for goodness sakes!
all true, blackshama, points well taken.
my point however, is what’s Manong Ed’s platform? What’s his qualifications? What’s his vision? Ang rason lang ba para maiboto eh dahil pari ka at nangangako kang hindi ka magnanakaw pag pangulo ka na? mukhang mababaw ang rason kung ganoon. Unfair kay Manong Ed kung karamihan sa boboto sa kanya eh, dahil pari siya.
what if.. that’s the voters’ reason for selecting Ed – because he is a priest?
and to the pinoy voter’s – that’s good enough.
what if? we can’t nullify the election results because people voted for ed because he is a priest.
is it ed’s fault that he runs, and that in running he gets elected?
well, bongV, if that’s good enough then the onus of telling the people that it’s really NOT lies on those who know that it is’nt.
that’s why i’m writing these things to tell people to go BEYOND the priesthood ek-ek thing with Manong Ed and FOR THEM to tell the PUBLIC na “hey, hindi lang siya magaling na pari…magaling din siyang public servant, and here are the pieces of evidence, ” etc., etc.
eh wala eh. hindi nila madepensahan si manong ed ng maganda. kita mo, pati si bishop oscar cruz anong sabi ” eh wala naman talagang nagawa sa pampanga si Manong ed” sa interview over DZBB kaninang umaga.
and yes BONG V, kasalanan din ni Manong Ed yan. Bakit? Dahil sa pagpayag niyang tumakbo, kinukunsinti niya indirectly ang mga taong may gusto sa kanya ng tignan ang paghalal ng isang pangulo sa isang konsiderasyon lang–ang pagiging di corrupt.
ang responsibility ng mga taga-suporta ni Manong Ed ay pataasin ang antas ng diskursyon tungkol sa kanya at wag magsalita ng ” kailangan natin ng moral president” ek-ek kundi sabihin sa taumbayan na karapat-dapat si Manong Ed na maging Pangulo dahil hard-worker siya, me puso sa masa AT may matatag na moral foundation. Kung ganoon ang sinasabi nila, eh, di mas maganda. Baka iboto ko pa si Manong Ed for lack of a better candidate.
yun nga Pat eh..
the people would insist otherwise..
tulad nyan – ilang beses ng sinabing wag iboto si Erap – ayun binoto pa rin
- ilang beses ng sinabing wag iboto si Arroyo – ayun binoto pa rin
ed may have the moral foundation, but he is not CEO material as far as I am concerned, same as Fernando – in a field of retards, he looks smarter kasi nga bobo yung mga kasabay niya, but when juxtaposed against a field of peers who are local executives and turnaround masters who have sustained their local economies – Tommy Osmeña whips Fernando’s butt many times over. yun nga lang Tommy is not running.
Has Ed taken a psychological evaluation lately? Oh well, it’s the Philippines – who needs mental eval – people still voted for Erap :)
If you study the history of religions. You can see numerous self
proclaimed prophets, false prophets and true prophets. Self proclaimed leaders, false leaders and true leaders.
As Jesus Christ stated: “You will know them by their fruits”. A
bad tree will produce bad fruit. A good tree will produce good
fruit, and even more bountiful good fruits in due seasons.
But sometimes good tree can turn into an unfruitful tree, like the fig tree which Jesus cursed for not bearing any fruit.
King David was God’s chosen one to take over King Saul’s kingship over Israel. When he ruled Israel, at the start he was doing great but at some point in his leadership he failed because his strength that killed wild beasts and giants is no match against his lust for the wife of one of his trusted generals. In an attempt to legalize his adulterous kingship, he even masterminded the death of the husband of the woman he coveted. This was the very reason God put a curse on David’s kingship from that point on, and nation of Israel suffered greatly because of that.
My point is, leaders are not always perfect. It is unwise to assume that because a leader is righteous that he will be righteous all the time. Nations can fall with just one serious mistake of its leader. This is why the vigilance and active participation of the people is ever necessary. Nation building is much more of a Tango than mere ChaCha — among other things, at least, it takes a “good” leader and a vigilant people for a nation to move and progress ahead.
Of course there are always opportunities for self-correction as what David did after realizing the gravity and impact on his leadership of the big mistake he had committed.
very true! agree and kudos for a very insightful comment.
Ano ba kayo???? Hindi ninyo ba alam na iyang eclipse ay “… sign from God” ?
1. Which God? Panlilio is Catholic and you should know.