Trixie Cruz: A Story about Feelings, nothing more than feelings

(photo credit: religiouswatch.com) 

Javier Krahe is a Spanish satirist who made a film in 1978 called “Cooking Christ” (“Como Cocinar un Crucifijo”).

According to The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/may/28/spanish-artist-cook-christ-film)the 54 second filmt was not shown publicly, but provided a backdrop to an interview made of him in 2004.

It showed a statue of Christ as an ingredient in a kind of cooking show that instructed the removal of nails, of separating the body from the cross.

It showed the figure being drenched in butter and placed in a pot, with the commentary, “One gaunt Christ” is apparently enough to feed two, and when the dish is ready (after three days) it miraculously emerges from the oven without assistance.”

After two dismissed attempts to have him prosecuted for “herir sentimientos religiosos,” also contained in the Spanish Codigo Penal, Krahe went to trial and was subsequently absolved.

His case, however, caused much debate similar to the Carlos Celdran case here. First, the charge of “offending religious feelings” had, prior to Krahe, never before been used. Second, it puzzled people that in this day and age, a law similar to that of blasphemy may still be committed.

Blasphemy, which Merriam-Webster defines as irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable, has been repealed in the United Kingdom in 2008.

That country had enacted in 2006 The Racial and Religious Hatred Act that punishes “inciting hatred against a person for his race or religion” and refined further to indicate behavior that is “threatening” towards a person or persons due to said religion or beliefs.

This sequence of events therefore, is instructive. To the world at large, blasphemy or offending religious feelings are no longer of much concern as to constitute penal offenses.

While we do insist on a respect for all beliefs, we should no longer punish the lack thereof, with a jail term. We seek to punish instead the kind of speech that incites hatred against a person or threatens such persons.

Finally, to underscore how archaic the law is, we note that the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines was enacted on 08 December 1930 and took effect 01 January 1932.

It is a near faithful reproduction of its precursor, the Penal Code of 1876. Contained in this collection of criminal laws are such outdated entries as Art. 261.

Challenging to a Duel, Art. 333. Adultery and Art. 334. Concubinage, as well as that by now infamous, Art. 133. Offending Religious Feelings.

Law is supposed to reflect the values of society and thus demands constant amendment to reflect the said values.

A society that must deal with a world that has reduced marital infidelity to a mere civil consequence – such as a ground for divorce, of which we are the only country archaic enough to do without – yet punishes its own citizens for a value it has long since revised will certainly have to constantly suffer the effects of this schizophrenia inducing self-examination.

So we should punish acts that are dangerous to society – hatred of minorities, oppression, repression of speech.

These are acts that undermine the stability of society, endanger lives, cause fear, suppress speech. Clearly in the hierarchy of the rights to be protected, free speech outweighs hurt feelings – religious or not.

By: Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles
(Source : PSSST! Centro)





To know more about Trixie Cruz Angeles, check out: I AM TRIXIE CRUZ