From a Posting from Readdingz

Many people would like to believe that reality is simple. You just have to have the right intentions and right decisions will follow. So, Humanity would be neatly divided between those who are forces of good and those who are forces of evil. So, let’s all be on the side of good and be good and everybody will be happy, right? Wrong. Let me change that last word in the previous sentence: “No, I don’t agree; I don’t think so!”

Whenever I declare somebody’s statement to be “correct” or “true.” I have to be precise with what I actually mean. If I owned the laptop I’ve been using, and someone says I own it. I can be precise and say “He is right!” But what if the other guy expressed an opinion, a judgment? Could I simply say, “He is right!” Of course, I could say that and I actually often do. But in such times I am not speaking precisely, because what I should really be saying is “I agree!” (No, I won’t deliberately say “I agree with him, therefore he is right. I only fall into that line of reasoning whenever I forget that I am not a proclaimer of what is right and wrong for the whole world to listen and “be guided accordingly”; I am only a proclaimer of my own opinions that agree or disagree with other people's own opinions.

..........You may say I nitpick now on a whole lot of semantics and rhetorics, and I can go along with such judgement (“Yes, you’re right!” hehehe!) but if I don’t go into self-questioning at least once in a while, I might actually forget and hear (mistake!) my voice as “speaking the divine last word” as the ultimate judge of right and wrong without even being anywhere near the Biblical Tree of Knowledge.

..........People are often very passionate and overconfident about our own personal or organizational opinions and there’s nothing wrong with that, unless we forget that no matter how passionate one is or how “sure” s/he feels, it is still his/her personal view, albeit perhaps a well-studied opinion of a proven genius! Many agonizing hours have been spent in fierce quarrels over whose personal view is the real “divine judgment” in the contention.

Recently, I expressed my vehement disagreement with a political party’s decision and its apparent premise and said without any qualifying words: “treason is on a higher plane than corruption!” Many expressed agreement with me. But to be complete and precise about it, I really should have said: “I strongly feel that they should have considered treason to be on a higher plane than corruption!” and carry no less passion and sense of confidence in the validity of my assertion. Or those who read me may have taken it as that, anyway. And it could have had the same effect as intended. Anyway…

A question asked in earnest should be followed by a question mark. In oral conversations, the question mark is of course invisible but it should be perceptible in the intonation, body language and overall behavior of the one articulating the supposed question. In many instances, however, it “looks” more like a question followed by a very angry platoon of screaming exclamation points (“Why!!!!!”).

This is often understandable but unfortunate. In a many cases, the mouth can only be pronouncing the word “Why” but the mind is trying to accommodate at least two thoughts: “Oh no! It can’t be! This would have very disastrous effects! This angers me greatly” and “I wonder why it happened” and “Oh no! It can’t be! This would have very very disastrous effects! This angers me so much I could explode!” So, while the curious part gets articulated in the word why, the anger part builds up fast that in the few nanoseconds it takes the mouth to pronounce the monosyllabic word, the question mark has transformed into an angry battalion of exclamation points.

Now, the person is not prepared to hear any answer, because the question had been forgotten after getting drowned in a wave of judgments. Having no reverence for the unknown and being only terrified by it, we often have the tendency to dismiss as irrelevant what we still don’t know and proceed to judge because we For clarity of mind, therefore, we should remind ourselves to only ask questions with question marks – if we are still asking we do not know the answer yet; and if we are this angry, we might never know or understand it. And the ones being asked may have the tendency to overreact to the overreaction… so there goes your earnest conversation!

Many questions are asked and passionately debated where at least one side of the debaters tend to dismiss the nuances that figure significantly in the positions of the other. In debates, this is deliberately done; in earnest discussions this happens unintentionally. For the sake of all involved, the quality of the outcome of the argument or earnest discussion, simple statements should not be simplistic sentences – nuances ought to be looked into, understood well, and weighed judiciously, whether or not it appears at all in the net resulting summary of the analysis. Usually, the nuances that are considered in the decision-making are assumed by one side to be “obvious to all” and assumed by the other side as non-existent.

It takes time to find out exactly what nuances played in the decision-making and exactly how heavily they were considered and why. Again comes the charge of “nitpicking on petty considerations” and the more warhawkish among us grow impatient—“what are we waiting for?"

Where’s the rage? why are we not yet in a quarrel mood yet of ‘punishing mood’? Why are we not forming a lynch mob yet?” Those who are not afraid that a lynch mob can be formed and agitated to success may have the tendency to deny that any problem exists.

In the context of human tendencies so described, people in a misunderstanding tend to proceed more to the worsening of it rather than to solving it for the sake of peace and synergetic strength that a group would need to do its work or at least to exist in harmony. Some people feel that as long ay they can blame other people for a conflict situation within a supposedly friendly community they have no problem. Some others tend to thicken the wall between the contending sides by recruiting all invoved to take sides and be part of worsening the problem, instead of acting as living bridges of communication and dialogue and lead to resolution and reconciliation.

Having reminded myself of all the foregoing points, and declaring my openness to be reminded of more, I feel ready now to proceed to ask my own questions on a wide-ranging conflict of views (that has spawned highly emotional judgments).

Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Lemuel Dizon (from LightShare Digest, Issue No. 2, July-Sept. 2005, p. 29): I want to share a personal experience on how i became embarrassed from my impatience.  It happened recently after i ordered two large boxes of crackers in a nearby grocery store and the man said he would go inside to get them.

But he was taking a very long time and i got impatient and started grumbling to another store man and really expressed my irritation that it was taking so long just to get two boxes of crackers.

Then the man who went inside came out apologizing for the delay.  He said he noticed he noticed some holes in the first two boxes and decided to look at other boxes and also saw holes in them.  It might be some rats, he said.

So he took a long time finding two boxes for me that had no holes.  So the delay was actually in my favor!

I spologized to him for getting mad but he just smiles and accepted my payment.  Then he told the manager about the holes.

Before i left the store, I waved at him and he smiles again.  I guess i still have to learn to find out things before getting furious about them.

Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Learning to Rebuild Bridges 

Peacecamp Core Team Member Ding Reyes, who moderates this on-line forum, contributes and entire thread among members of  the LightShare e-mail list group, as published in the second issue (July-Sept.  2005) of the quarterlt LightShare Digest (now defunct) and invites others to add their own voices. 

Ding Reyes: We all have occasional gaps with our loved-ones and close  friends  one  time  or another,  and   this  sharing might help you snap out of a situation before you can even face one like this.

I was once asked for advice on this dilemma: “My mom and I had a nasty ar­gument recently, and by now we have both cooled down our tempers, but we’re still not talking. I want to end this gap now or at least soon, and I feel she wants that, too.  But we seem to be waiting for each other to make the first move. 

Who should really make the first move? I hesitate because although she is the mother and I am only the daughter, meaning I am outranked, siya naman talaga ang mali sa nangyari eh!”

I had long known the mother, too, from way back and I’ve been familiar with her temper and even her frequent lack of sound reasoning. I phrased my answer this way:

 “Whichever one of you is ‘higher’ in stature or ‘less wrong,’ the more matured would be the one to make the first move.  But if you beat her to it, don’t tell her you are more matured, because that can start another gap!”

I  didn’t say it would be easy!  But it worked!

Thankful cheers!

Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu

I agree with you (Luis) that you have already started the healing process because your attitude to her has changed. Of course the follow-through is needed. 

Almost the same thing happened to me, too.  It was not even for a whole day that there was eerie silence between us, only about an hour because the other officemates started coming for work on time. We two had both come to the office earlier than the official time.  Before that hour was over, the healing also started with self-checking and a change of attitude about him (the other person was a man). Then I waited for the chance to smile at him.

That chance came when the electric current in our of­fice blinked and restarted both our computers, with both of us losing much unsaved work. I smiled   at   him   while   slowly shaking my head. Then I jerked my head. Or did I shrug my shoulder, I don't remember clearly now. Then he surprised me by standing up and shaking my hand.  We  both laughed. Still no words.  It was almost lunch time when we finally started talking. 

As I tell officemates who have interpersonal problems, you start with your attitude, then healing continues from that point, on! 

Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vic O. Milan: Anyone in this kind of a dilemma will do well to recall the  kind  of  humility  and  forgiveness practiced by the late Pope John Paul II.

Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lemiel Dizon: I am interested in what you brought up.  How did the late Pope John Paul II make the first move on a gap that involved him?  I can imagine his humility working on other kinds of problems, but you may know how that humility pushed  him  to make  the  first move. Or was his humility useful in preventing gaps between and other people?  I'd be interested in that too! Thanks in advance  for  your  answer.  It will help me know Pope John Paul more. Of course, I've always believed that all popes and all saints are humble or at least most of them. How does this apply in his particular case?

Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vic O. Milan: 

Pope John Paul apologized to the Jews because the Catholic Church did not do enough to stand up for them when they were persecuted by the Nazis.  The most notable, to my mind, of his virtues was his capacity for forgiveness.  He not only forgave the man (assasin) who fired the bullet that almost took his life, he went to visit the man in prison to forgive and bless him.

Whenever I am tempted to strike back or simply seethe in anger at someone for a real or imaginary hurt, I just remember this act of forgive­ness by Pope John Paul II and I immediately feel better.  By the way, just a reminder: there is a real connection between anger and heart disease!  Have a good day.

Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Melvin Candoni (a.k.a. "Melted Candle"): It was good that Lemuel asked the question about Pope John Paul, which Vic gave as an example in his own response to the question "Who should make the first move."  Indeed, the late Pope's gestures on forgiveness -- asking for it, and also giving it -- deserve emulation.  Lem's sharing of a parallel experience with the one shared by Loloi helped me because it emphasizes what Loloi said.  There was another question being raised aside from "who should make the first move" and that is WHAT is the first move.  In the case shared by Sir Ding that a daughter was  asking whether it was she or her mother, who was "siya naman talaga ang mali," who would make the first move.  It seems that the first step was already done. the daughter had al­ready forgiven her mother and already wanted the gap ended.

This was what both Loloi and Lem were saying, that the healing process had started as soon as the party feeling offended had an attitude change toward the person and toward their gap. The disclosure of such re­conciliatory at­titude can only come after the attitude change occurred quietly, even secretly, within the person's heart.

The first to benefit is the forgiving person's heart, whe­ther or not the gap is healed. As Vic says, anger, whether seething anger or sustained anger or both, is hazardous to its health!

Thank you, Guys, I am enriched by your sharings!

And as I always say, "in order to give light, a candle should be willing to get melted"

Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surf Reyes: In my 11-day stay in Pagadian,  I had no access  to the internet (only the Innernet ) . Now,  as I have  found  the time to go through my email, I am happy to read the contributions from Lemuel, Vic, Melvin, Loloi, Karen, Bebot, etc., LightShare is coming back to life!

I love the expressions of honest feelings in personal experi­ences which had been lacking for a while. I love the exchanges, for instance, on the thread, "Who should make the first move?".

And I love Melvin's refined focus on "WHAT should be the first move?" from his reading of Loloi's piece. I agree with all that was said, especially, "that the healing process had started as soon as the party feeling offended had an attitude change toward the person and toward their gap."

When one fully forgives another even if secretly, he withdraws from the conflict, and the fragmentation is transformed  back  to wholeness   in him. And in the reality of the interconnectedness of all con­sciousness, even if the other party is not conscious of it, the negative bond is broken and there can be no friction or conflict when there is only one "participant."

This is what happened to Sultan Maguid in the story I recently shared (in LightShare e-Group) about his ‘conversion.’ He had this war to the death with his political enemies. In the end he found in his heart forgiveness for his enemies. He said, "I thought I was seeking justice, but I realized there can be no justice unless there is love." He said when he found his inner conversion, his enemies also changed heart and are no longer after him. 

And when one breaks the bond of conflict, by withdrawing the energy that gives life to it, the "disconnection" becomes a window for the spirit to flow into and create the situation for the healing to be manifest in the 

outer. There is really no need to struggle to reach out, only the openness to respond to the opportunity created by the spirit. This is what happened to previously warring Muslims, who, in a chance meeting in a mosque, ended up spontaneously embracing each other.

This is what happened in Lemuel's story when the electric current blinked affecting their computers, that triggered the serendipitous manifestation of the healing of the relationship with his officemate.

I happily look forward to more sharing of this kind: personal, experiential  Any sharing of honest feelings (from the heart) and personal experiences I consider true lightsharing. For each of you is the only one of your kind in the whole universe, and by knowing you through your experiences, I know the universe and myself better.

LovePeaceJoy,

Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Understand Love, We must Understand the Opposites

Peacecamp Core Team Member Rem Tanauan reveals a Viewpoint that can prevent many pointless conflicts among people.

Rem Tanauan (of the Pathfinder's Commune, shares one of his planned inputs for the Peacecamp-proper):  To understand Love, we must understand the opposites.

     Love is often an opposite of either fear, hatred and evil. But Love has no opposite. Fear is the opposite of courage, hatred is the opposite of forgiveness, and evil is often the opposite of good. Courage and forgiveness are both transcendent quality of Love, where they represent Love as a direct experience. Good and Evil are, on the other hand, not really opposites at all. This problem can be understood through the two kinds of opposites. In the truth of Love, we will see that there is a thin line that separates the the nature of opposites: either opposites are complementing or opposing.

     Complementing opposites are basically natural: light and dark, hot and cold, high and low, hard and soft. They are all part and whole of this reality. Nothing separates them except in our minds. The experience of complementing opposite is what most spiritual teachings call Oneness.

     Oneness is the ultimate sense of unity. It is deep beneath the physical reality we see. It is the essence of connectedness, no matter how different people, things and events may be. In Oneness, opposites do not oppose; rather, they are always one and the same. They are in the same spectrum. Darkness is simply absence of Light, and Coldness is simply absence of Heat. In absence, we define presence and vice versa. At first this would be mind-boggling, but we will further understand this when we understand the next kind of opposite.

     Opposing opposites are distorted view of the opposite, an experience we often call Separation.The ultimate separation ingrained in our beliefs is the opposition of good and evil. From here, all natural opposites seem to be always at war with each other: Black versus white, superior versus inferior, strong versus weak, rich versus poor, man versus woman. We have always believed this illusion that it has perpetuated a culture of survival of the fittest. We destroy each other because we both believe the other is an enemy rather than a friend, or we see ourselves more righteous than others. We have become self-centered creatures that our only survival is our concern. This primal instinct has wiped the dinosaur species millions of years ago.

     Seeing beyond the opposites leads us to an awakened soul. We would not see that the mind and body are separate, more so of seeing God and humanity. There is no more rift between two opposites, only understanding them as two expressions of the same essence. Deepak Chopra, the poet-prophet of mind/body medicine, says that "good is the union of all opposites; evil does not exist." As we operate on this consciousness, we would never identify evil as the great opponent of good. Good is the all-encompassing circle that includes all opposites that naturally mirror each other. No more enemies. No more evil.

     But why do we still think in opposites. One reason: because the nature of Love is completely whole that it cannot be experienced without a conscious mind that can experience it.

     Think of a flower. A flower is perfect in itself. It behaves on its own reality without the need of other flowers' appreciation. But a flower is not conscious of its own existence. We, human beings who are conscious of our own, cannot escape the reality of being conscious of others' existence, be it a fellow human, living beings such as plants, animals, and inanimate things such as nature, heavenly bodies. With this consciousness, we see the flower, appreciate and give name to it. This is the experience of seeing the flower, as if the flower experiences itself through us.

     Because of this consciousness, we sense our reality as if separate from us, an illusion most thinkers call duality. I am here, you are there. Kahlil Gibran, the poet-mystic author of The Prophet once said: "Is not the mountain far more awe-inspiring and more clearly visible to one passing through the valley than to those who inhabit the mountain?" By being down here, we can see the mountain up there. If we are up in the mountain, we cannot see the mountain at all.

     This is why opposites exists, not to separate us from everything that exists, but to be conscious of all of them. Love is infinite in many ways, expresses in different forms, and how Love does it is a mystery to all of us. And these seemingly separate expressions of Love, be it in words, deeds, objects, persons, creatures, arts, etc., are all but same manifestation of this Oneness.

     This is why opposites exist not to separate us from anything that exists, but to be conscious of all of them.

     A man is naturally a man, and his experience is different from that of a woman. They are different forms of the same species: homo sapiens aka human beings. Can we really say that their nature is opposing? How can another human being be born without a man-woman sexual union? It is because of their difference--opposite--that they can complement each other, and their unity bears another creation, or material unfolding of Love that remains intangible and invisible.

Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu

Ding Reyes: In his article above, Rem points out a very critically valuable clarification to distinguish the terms "opposite," "distinct," "separate" and "conflicting" among htmselves.  In my Human Holons: Power-Packed Synergies (2003), i give a similar reminder:

"Distinction should not be allowed to mean separation; without distinction and diversity all complementation, harmony and teamwork cannot be possible; separation is the intellect’s mistaken negation and denial of the actual fact of Oneness.  

"In synergism and the reality of holons, this is a crucially vital assertion."

Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Claire Madarang (Peacecemp-Masbate Core Group Member): Rem says: "This is why opposites exist not to separate us from anything that exists, but to be conscious of all of them."   This is a much overlooked truth. I also believe that opposites can give rise to new perspectives and opportunities. :) 

Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peaceful, Peace-loving Response to an Insult on Filipinos

Thread started by Shyam Tony Reyes, California-based member of  LightShare e-mail list group

Shyam Tony Reyes (posted in LightShare e-group): (Letter addressed to an Emmanuel, who had shared an insulting letter from a Dutch man married to a Filipina.) There is a lot of truth in what he said about the options the SWAT Team could have taken. It's a learning situation. that's all we can do positively from what happened; we should learn as much as we can from it. I tis, however, his presentation of this incident as the proof of the "idiocy" of Filipino culture is what's totally mistaken. And that's where it counts the most in his message. Katrina does not prove a faulty American culture; it's the faulty economic-political system that was revealed in that, not the culture; Hitler does not make German culture; etc.

Truth is everywhere, so there will always be some truth in what one says. So we agree that there's some truth to what he said. However, as Bebot has observed, the language is a dead giveaway as to the state of mind and culture the person is in at least at the time of his writing his tirade of Filipino culture. One can switch out the country name and some other details with any nation and he will still be saying some truth.

 Do remember that one's state of mind inevitably and unavoidably determines what one sees and interpret/experience/understand. If your state of mind is holy and divine, you will see/interpret/experience/understand holiness and divinity everywhere you go; your divine Child-of-God energy makes it so, especially since it is the Truth. You will see that we all occupy the same divine space-time-energy-consciousness continuum equally, one no more than the other. It is only in the awareness of that reality that is not the same for everyone. But awareness can be changed by one's choosing of what thoughts to hold and serve.

 Another thing is that it is not a good idea to evaluate a nation's culture based on their weaknesses and errors. It is better to see a nation's culture as the common wealth of that nation, the good things that all of its people share and make them grow and prosper together. The other stuff-the bad, the ugly, the destructive, the ignorance-are the things that block,deplete, and destroy their culture. Why is this point of view better? Because, for starters, it puts the beholder in a better personal space (alpha state would be much preferred as it is the best functionality level we can easily live in); and secondly, it empowers that beholder to do something about nurturing the good and mitigating the bad.

 To say "nakakahiya" is to blame the "Filipino culture" for something it has nothing to do with. The only shame is in not doing something positive about what is before us. It is always easier to blame others, but that only perpetuates and oftentimes worsens the situation; it does not solve or at least make it better. Let us-each and everyone who has love in their hearts-make sure we have our airplane's oxygen mask on first before we try to help others in an airplane situation. Before we say or do anything that might be damaging, let's check that we're stably logged in to our own goodness, that we keep a lasting awareness of the good within, our kabutihang-loob, our goodwill for all in full measure, in its myriad forms, all beautiful and delightful, mahalikha, creations of love, creations of the Highest. This is the true culture of the Filipino, rooted in the Greek word philos, loving. "No love, not a Filipino." Let us devote ourselves to this kabutihang-loob cause so that we can make a qualitative change for the better. There is no stronger root of the strength of a nation than the goodwill that they share together equally, simply but powerfully from each one's mindful awareness of staying in our divine office of goodness. Let the power of inner goodness flow and transform our nation.

 My suggestion to our Dutch brother-who vented his current viewpoint of Filipino culture using the disaster that just happened as the "smoking gun" of his perception of what Filipino culture is-is to go to his good space first, and see how that feels. If he likes it, he can stay in that feeling, his own ultimate treasure: his kabutihang-loob. Then he can learn more about what is at the foundation of Filipino (and Humankind's) cultural common wealth: kabutihang-loob, goodwill for all. He apparently needs some love :) but first he has to find himself worthy of love and give love to himself. Then he can recognize and accept love that comes from others, including Filipinos. He might be pleasantly surprised that his family relations will improve if he hangs around more in his kabutihang-loob space more often than not. We are not perfect, but we (Humankind) are all working at it. We can help each other do that. Wild generalizations and name-calling disrespects those who do not fall in the category of those disrespectful words. It is best to avoid using them if we are seriously committed to the path of sharing God's Light and Love.

So I won't call him names either; instead, I send him my blessings and prayers for his enlightenment on his own Divine Truth, his family's Divine Truth, and onward outward until it encompasses awareness of the Divine nature of all beings. Life and existence comes from One Divine Source and there is no life nor existence outside of It.

Good day and God bless All!

Shyam

Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joydee Robledo-Elizondo  (New Zealand-based co-founder of Saniblakas Foundation): i couldn't help but feel immense gratitude for sharing your divine loving experience/thoughts/being especially on this one. i think we need doses of these communicated divine love, wisdom, every so often to help us live in conscious awareness of who we really are. i don't exactly know how to express how i feel using my mind. maybe because i think it's beyond thinking.
salamat :)

Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surf Reyes  (Quezon City-based member of Pamayanang Saniblakas, LightShare, Lambat-Liwanag. Sanib-Sining, etc.):  

@Shyam: Beautifully said! An enlightened view from the TOP (Transcendent Observation Post). From the silence of listening, hearing beyond the angry voices the cries for help from fear...
@Joydee: Ang galing-galing mo! :-) Your mind cannot tell what your heart knows so well...
salamat :)

Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu

Atty. Manuel F. Almario  (Quezon City-based veteran national journalist from Masbate province; spokesperson, Movement for Thruth in History):  

It is unfortunate that some senators browbeat and threatened the media for the Aug, 23 hostage tragedy during a public hearing.  The rescue effort dismally failed not because of the media but because of the gross incompetence of the police.

The media are being used as convenient scapegoat to divert public attention from the government’s bungling.  Former Sen. Aquilino Pimentel said it right: If not for the media coverage, the public would not know of the police’s inability to deal with hostage situations of that scale.  The government is now doing its best to correct the deficiency and to prevent similar fiascos in the future.  The media should be praised rather than condemned.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Sen. Joker Arroyo criticized media for embarrassing Filipinos before the world.  But isn’t transparency supposed to be a mark of good government? Is the prospect that the country would be embarrassed by the disclosure of government blunders a reason for muzzling the press?  In fact, Hong Kong media have issued a statement commending the Philippine press for its adept coverage of the incident.

Our senators and officials should learn from the US Supreme Court decision in the case of New York Times v. United States, upholding the right of newspapers to publish the Pentagon Papers.  The US government had claimed the publication of the Pentagon Papers, which bared lapses in the then ongoing US war against Vietnam, would endanger national security. In their concurring opinion, Justices Black and Douglas wrote:

“In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers [of the US] gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy.  The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.  The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished to that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government.  The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.  Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.  And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to foreign lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.  In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly.”

And yet the hostage rescue fiasco was not even a national security matter. It was merely about “embarrassing” the government.  In that case, even cases of graft and corruption, human rights violations, jueteng scandals and massacres should not be published or aired because they cause the country “embarrassment.”  We might as well abolish the press.

  Please send all comments to: peacecamp.masbate@gmail.com.                    back to sub-menu