NEVER AGAIN? by J.P. Abecilla

This is an answer to the article ‘Never Again’ is not just about Marcos from inquirer.net. (Go to this link for the full text of the article: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/130228/never-again-is-not-just-about-marcos). I do not claim any expertise, but I want to respond as a free individual living in a free country and looking for the truth on any given issue. The following are suggestive rebuttals on some parts of the arguments of the writing on the issue:

Inquirer.net:  Bongbong Marcos wants Filipinos to forget.

In fact, he wants to go beyond forgetting: Marcos Jr. denies that the reign of terror ever happened.

Which is why his candidacy is both a threat and an opportunity.

Response:   The writer has not shown any evidence of this saying. I have not read or heard yet that Bongbong Marcos wants the Filipinos to forget or denies the terror that happens during Martial Law. What Bongbong says in an interview in Bandila is to move on and not choose dictatorship. He does not even deny that there are bad effects of Martial Law. (Watch the full interview at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPjbfR1YRKM).

           It is possible that history can be forgotten by some people. Why? Because some do not read history at all. And of course, you cannot forget anything from history if you have not known anything from history. What can you forget if you have nothing to remember in the first place? There are many books, read them.

            It is important that we could not forget the past but it is most important to move on and not live on the past especially if you have overwhelming counterarguments against any lies about the past.

Inquirer.net: But as I said, Bongbong’s “my-father’s-murderous-reign-didn’t-really- happen” campaign is also an opportunity.

The phrase “Martial Law” trended on Twitter the week he announced his candidacy. Membership in the Never Again site on Facebook has risen sharply,

In social media and beyond, Marcos Jr.’s bid for power has turned the spotlight on the way Marcos Sr. abused his power.

Response: I saw these statements as more an emotional envy than a factual argument. Turning the spotlight to Marcos Jr.’s candidacy is not similar to abuse of power. All of us know that our new generation of youths has grown up in a modern digital era wherein a book of history can easily bore them, let alone reading a piece of an article like this. So, it is really practical to develop another way of informing the youths in a place where you can mostly find them: Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. That is what they want, then give them what they want. You are even campaigning against Sen. Bongbong Marcos through social media because you know that you can influence the netizens, so you will contradict yourself if you will stop those who are campaigning for the senator using the same tool.

Inquirer.net:  I fully endorse the view that we should not blame children for their parent’s crimes. Bongbong has the right to say, “I’m not my father.”

But he’s gone beyond that many times. He has painted the Marcos years as a time of peace, prosperity and happiness, smugly rejects allegations of torture and plunder during the 21 years when his father was in power.

Bongbong Marcos is waging a campaign based on distortions and denial of a dark chapter when one ruler enjoyed absolute power.

If we forget that, it could happen again.

And I’m not talking about the return to power of anyone named Marcos. “Never Again” is not just about Marcos. It’s not just about one family.

It’s about keeping alive the most important lesson of the Marcos regime: That we should not readily believe individuals or political forces seeking absolute power, arguing that only they have the answers to the country’s problems.

Response:  The writer is evidently contradicting himself. To say that you are not talking about the return to power of anyone named Marcos and yet you will say “That we should not readily believe individuals or political forces seeking absolute power, arguing that only they have the answers to the country’s problems” (which is clearly pertaining to Marcos) is a self-contradiction. You cannot fool a critical reader and thinker.

It is erroneous to think that because you believe in something then you want also others should believe the same. That is what dictatorship really means – dictating to someone what you want them to believe instead of allowing them to discover it on their own. Do not also assume that you are the only one who knows history. I have just finished my 9 units in history, 9 units in philosophy, 18 units in sociology, anthropology, and culture-related courses, 3 units each in political science and economics, and more than four years of studying theology. Those are not enough and never will be enough. Those are not bragging and never will I brag about them. Those can be considered as junks by others who have Masters and Doctors next to their names though they are also contradicting each other. What I am saying is that we who believe the Marcoses are not ignorant of the Philippine culture and history. You should not assume that we cannot distinguish the difference between facts and fiction in our history. Accept the fact that we have no similar way of thinking and seeing things let alone defining what historical truth is.

I am happy though that the writer is endorsing that we should not blame children for their parent’s crimes through seeming contradictions that are evident throughout the whole article. It is really erroneous and deceptive to think that because Sen. Marcos is the son of the dictator Pres. Marcos, then they are already the same and should be both convicted. It is impoverished to think about that. Sen. Marcos is an economist while the late Pres. Marcos is a lawyer. Sen. Marcos is an innovator while the late Pres. Marcos is a public speaker. People have elected Noynoy Aquino to the presidency but now they are saying that his tuwid na daan is really a tuwad na daan. Can we also say that the People Power of Cory Aquino is also a tuwad na daan because she is the mother of Noynoy? If you will laugh at that idea, I will also do the same if you think that Sen. Marcos is also a dictator like his father. Sen. Marcos has already asserted that he is running only to continue his service from the Province of Ilocos to the Senate and if he wins, to Vice Presidency not for the sake of grabbing absolute power. 

It is already a part of Filipino culture to see the bad part of a regime instead of looking at the good side of it. It is similar in looking to the big and pointed thorns of a rose than on the beautiful flower itself. We have already practiced looking at the negative side of the story than the positive one. Why I have known that? Of course, similar to you, I am also a born and grown-up Filipino with the strong mixed blood of the Ilocanos and Cebuanos. Can we not also see the positive side? Are we depriving a Filipino citizen of his potential ability to help our country progress because of our own fear and prejudice? We have been under the colonial power of the Spaniards, Japanese, and Americans, but why are we not deporting their sons and daughters who are now enjoying our country? Does that mean that we have also forgotten the history of our nation? No. That means we want to leave the past and move on. But how in this world we cannot let Marcos rise again and prove their capabilities to help our nation? We become afraid of the Marcoses. We become marcophobes (I just play words, you cannot find that in the dictionary).

Everyone can really be shocked, emotional, angered, and afraid of seeing numerous deaths, destruction, disembodiment, and disorders as a result of dark Martial Law. Those are of course the negative side of it and an effect of a cause and anyone can really cry “Never Again.” Even Pres. Marcos does not have the intention to have an effect like that. Martial Law is a decision not only by the president but also by the legislators, judges, and the people themselves because of the terror of communism caused by someone who is an archenemy of the president. You see, it has already been implanted in our culture to ask something from the government but when outrageous evil results from it, we always blamed the president without looking at ourselves. A historical malady, isn't it? Declaring Martial Law is justifiable depending on how strong the reasons are. Do you think the president, together with the decision body, is stupid enough to see that? No one could really even think of the evil after the declaration because why proclaim something if you already know the effect of it? Why People Power did not happen immediately after the declaration if people did not really like it?

Never Again is indeed undeniably a shout against the dictatorship which Sen. Marcos was also against for. We should not compare two different personalities living in two different generations. The late Sen. Ninoy Aquino has been charged with treason and on March 4, 2015 Pres. Noynoy Aquino has also been charged again with treason, why we are not also campaigning against them? The late Pres. Roxas is also charged with treason, is it also possible that a descendant with the same family name could do the same? Seems that treason is not a big deal for the Filipinos. I will make a simple prediction if the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) pushed by the Aquino administration will be passed which is also the cause of treason charged similar to the treason filed against his father, the Philippines will be in chaos and far more destructive than the Martial Law of Marcos. Let us see what will be the future of the divided Philippines. Senator Bongbong Marcos is one of those who are against the passing of BBL. If he will win, the phrase “Never Again” can still be true because the Philippines will "Never Again" be like the past administrations, especially the one that has changed the Constitution in favor of the other country, but will continue to rise from its fall.

BELIEVE TO BE SAVED

“…what must I do to be SAVED? And they said, BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be SAVED.” Acts 16:30, 31

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt BELIEVE in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be SAVED.” Romans 10:9

Needlessly to say, most people don't really base their belief on the Holy Bible because if they do, they should have believed it. It is also a waste of time to talk on them about literal and allegorical interpretation of the Scripture and who has the right to interpret it. In addition, it is more than useless to speak with people who don’t even read the Bible though they are proud claiming to be Christians. A great irony isn't? People who call themselves Christians don’t read the Bible and don’t believe on it at all but trust only on their man-made traditions, church dogmas, and ecclesiastical leaders. Some call this as “culture.” Accordingly, they believe that it is something that is hard to change especially if deep emotion has grown with it. Anyone who will try to deal with it is like he/she is touching a very sacred part of the ego that can result to a very sensitive reaction. Nonetheless, this people love to talk about “open-mindedness” but most of the time that cliché stays a preaching than a practice. If they know that you have a different church affiliation, they will look down on you as if you are a heretic, a non-believer of God, a devil, a bigot, an undeveloped species, an enemy of the “church,” and a fool. You see, indifference, close-mindedness, and prejudgment are still there. A high towering wall has been built as a gap between diversities of belief. Is that what they call “open-mindedness”? I am not pleading for “open-mindedness” to the reader because of the fact that most don’t have that really, let alone reading this article in the first place. I ask, however, to please read the Holy Bible, examine your faith, study the assertions of your leader, and be reasonable than emotional in your response. Now, going back to the issue, is it necessary to BELIEVE to be SAVED?

We, who have trusted the Bible (AV1611) and took it as our final authority in faith and practice, believe every single word of it – the jots, the tittles, and even the punctuation of it. If the Bible says, “Believe,” then believe. If it says you will be saved after believing then you will be saved indeed. It is as clear as a crystal. No deep apologetic, no high sounding words, and no elitist group who need to redefine or interpret it for you. Moreover, that truth will stand by itself whether you believe it or not. It is not even needed to be defended because it will forever endure.

The issue of whether we need to believe God for our salvation is not already a matter of religion but a matter of a relationship between God as the Creator and humans as creatures. It is not already an issue on whether you believe the one who denies it but whether you believe on what God says in His Holy Word. God is not visible on our mortal eyes and the only way to know Him more is through the scriptures that He has left us. However, people will say that the Bible is only written by man so why believe it. I will not be sorry to tell this, that utterance is a plain ignorance. It has been normal to some that when they are confronted and convicted with the Scripture they will deny it by saying that it is just written by men with errors and biases on it. Indeed, it is a show of historical, biblical, and spiritual illiteracy. Do you feel insulted? Well, your culturally adopted predisposition has been touched I think. Instead of reacting emotionally, let your intellectual capacity work for you. I cannot give you in this short article evidence on the truth that the Bible is the word of God though written by man. Simply think that God have intended to write His Word through man, by man, and for man, with the language that they can understand. You cannot separate God and His Word. Believing God is believing His Word.

Jesus says, “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me” (John 14:1). Believing God is fundamental to someone’s belief (theist) so it would be absurd to deny that especially for salvation. It also follows that if we believe God we also need to believe Jesus, the only begotten Son of God. Why does Jesus ask to believe Him? Simple, because He is the Savior and it is needful for us to believe Him to be saved. And that’s what Silas and Paul answer on the question of what must someone do to be saved (Acts 16:30). Their answer is simple and plain, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31). Our Lord is also named Jesus because as the angel Gabriel says, “he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). The Apostle Peter also says that “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). With these verses, it can be concluded that someone really need to believe Jesus for him/her to be saved.

Centuries ago, the Prophet Jonah has asserted that “Salvation is of the LORD” (Jonah 2:9). Because the Lord is the Savior it will be needless to say that we need to trust Him to be saved. After all, you cannot call someone as Savior if He cannot save at all, let alone calling someone a teacher without the ability to teach at all. To say that “Salvation is of the LORD” is to say that salvation is only on a person not on a church, a religious system, a tradition, a work of charity, and a dogma. It is erroneous to say that you need to be a member of a particular local, institutionalize church to be saved. Salvation is in a person – of the LORD. No need to elaborate the arguments given by these people who believe that a specific church or religion can save and that outside of it there is no salvation. A church is not a savior. Religion is not a savior. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior. God says, “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.” We need to look on Him who can save us not on them who can not. The only person who has suffered on the cross of Calvary to pay the price of our sin by His own precious blood is Jesus Christ. No pastor, no priest, no minister, no apostle, no saint, no church, and no angel who has been crucified for the whole world to be saved. The Apostle John says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” The reason why believing Jesus can save us is because a promise of eternal life will be granted for those who will trust on Him. Jesus also says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Christian readers, let us stand strong in the truth of the Word of God in the midst of lies. Continue to preach the gospel of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. People, even your love ones, will reject you, insult you, and leave you but Jesus will be with you always even unto the end of the world (Matthew 28:19, 20). Amen.

BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED. GLORY BE TO THE HOLY FATHER IN THE HEAVEN OF HEAVENS.

FREEDOM TO LIVE, FREEDOM TO BELIEVE, AND FREEDOM TO EXPRESS by J.P. Abecilla

"And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born." Acts 22:28

Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth." John F. Kennedy

“No one can kill in the name of God. This is an aberration. There is a limit to freedom of expression.” Pope Francis

Freedom is not absolute. It transcends the serenity of peace but limits the evil of sin. It infiltrates the bondage of fear but restrains the spontaneity of perdition. Nonetheless, thinkers alike cannot give a specific definition of this abstraction thus the abuse and bewilderment. The application of the word however, is not subject to any preference but to the fidelity of its nature.

Anyone will feel disappointed if some will imprison others for the sake of someone’s freedom. It is very unlikely that children will suffer just to hide the incapability of others to maintain peace and order. Putting young ones on a cage while others are freely enjoying the outside world is depriving them to breathe the air of a free country. Is the Philippines free in the first place? I believe it is so. But how if someday, they will also need to imprison you or me for the sake of someone’s freedom? Is the government giving us another definition of freedom or are they offering us something that will redefine the word? I am afraid that someday I will wake up one morning and see our nation darkened with the clouds of political and ecclesiastical imperialism.

Visual representation and denial of freedom are somehow easy to spot unto. But the invisible ones, like the atmospheric world of spirituality, are hard to detect especially by the eyes of them who are not aware of it. Some should be blamed if the truth has been deprived from them because of their apathetic and passive attitude towards spiritual matters. Indeed, religious freedom is really felt in our country but in a euphemistic manner. Moreover, respecting other’s belief is embraced and accepted by all, even by the writer himself, but how can someone guard the truth in the midst of a treacherous acceptance? A forceful way of converting others like suicide bombings and religious leader assassination must really be condemned, but how about the sharp deadly thrust of manipulative speeches and writings? Most spectators could not discern that easily but the spiritually incline ones can.

Sir Thomas Browne asserted, “Scholars are men of peace; they bear no arms; but their tongues are sharper than sword; their pens carry further and give a louder report than thunder. I had rather stand in the shock of a basilisk than in the fury of a merciless pen.” A conquering eagle, Napoleon I, also utters, “There are only two powers in the world, the sword and the pen; and in the end the former is always conquered by the latter.” The great battle then is raging in paper, books, media, streets, pulpits, and everywhere you find people using their voices and pens. The freedom of the press, of speech, and of expression is a real need and should be seen in a free country. Hence, limiting the freedom to speak through a law of “hate speech” should be reconsidered. “Tongues are sharper than sword” and a pen could be “merciless” but it can free souls from mental and spiritual imprisonment. To add however, immature gatherings made out of naivete is not plausible at all.Nonetheless, religious insult should not be given the chance to take the opportunity. With that, what is insulting and what is not, what is “hateful” and what is not must be subject to a certain standard depending however, on what kind of measurement someone use. As for me, I take the Holy Bible (AV1611) as my final authority in faith and practice.

Freedom is enjoyed by individuals who are free to think, free to speak and free to live. It is limited when someone’s name is trodden down, when a single life or the society as a whole is endangered, and when someone’s soul is at stake in a single step to hell. Let freedom rings then in the Philippine islands through the illuminating power of the truth, mercy, peace, and love that can only be found on the Lord Jesus Christ. As Jesus says, “And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you FREE” (John 14:6).