I just got this emailed report fresh from the Vatican Press that the Vatican “Expressed ‘astonishment’ and ‘regret’ at Tuesday’s decision from the European Court of Human Rights that crucifixes in public school classrooms are in violation of Freedom.” Call it unbelievable that the European Union (EU) has made this bold, but reckless decision to have crucifixes removed as a violation of freedom. EU officials have obviously forgotten their history… that most of European nations that comprise the EU were once under Muslim domination during the Ottoman Empire and it was only when Christian nations symbolizing the cross vanquished the Ottoman Empire that they were able to gain their freedoms.
Jesuit priest, Fr. Federico Lombardi, Director of the Vatican Press Office issued this statement to Vatican Radio “The crucifix has always been a sign of God’s offer of Love, of union and of welcome for the whole of humanity. It is to be regretted that it has come to be considered as a sign of division, of exclusion and of limitation of liberty. It is not this, and it is not so in the common feeling of our people.”
Fr. Lombardi added, “Religion makes a precious contribution to a person’s formation and moral growth, and is an essential component of our civilization. It is mistaken and myopic to want to exclude it from the educational realm. It is astonishing then that a European Court should intervene weightily in a matter profoundly linked to the historical, cultural and spiritual identity of the Italian people. It seems that there is a desire to ignore the role of Christianity in the formation of European identity, which instead has been and remains essential.”
In line with this statement, the Italian government protested the EU ruling having contended that crucifixes often hung in Italian public schools — a national symbol of culture and history. What can we say, but present you with that often repeated quote by Barbara Tucman, “Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat them.” The EU has forgotten that the Holy Cross was symbol of the Crusades. Soon the European nations will become Muslim.
* * *
When I wrote that article about the alleged ban of the use of Cebuano in the TV special Pinoy Big Brother, it was triggered out of concern by many friends who live outside Metro Manila. So when I reprinted the official response of ABS-CBN to that article last Wednesday, I expected a retort coming from Filipinos whose patriotism cannot be denied just because they speak a language different from what the so-called nationalists call Filipino.
Here’s a reply to that ABS-CBN letter from a dear friend, Atty. Manuel Lino G. Faelnar, Vice-President of DILA (Defenders of the Indigenous Languages of the Archipelago) Phils. Foundation, a member of the Linguistic Society of the Philippines and Director of Lubas sa Dagang Bisaya, Inc. (LUDABI).
“Bobit, Allow me to respond to Mr. Bong Osorio’s official response to your column regarding the treatment of Cebuano in Pinoy Big Brother denying an outright ban of Cebuano. He admits to the relegation of Cebuano to a minor dialogue and miniscule role as it is their duty to promote the Filipino language and Filipino is encouraged by Pinoy Big Brother.
This of course means that Cebuano is discouraged. But what Pinoy Big Brother is promoting as Filipino is Tagalog. This is wrong. Nowhere does the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines say that Tagalog is Filipino. Art.XIV, Sec. 6 of the Constitution provides; The National Language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages.”
The Constitution does not mandate that Filipino shall be based on Tagalog. We maintain the position that Filipino, not being Tagalog is a language that is still being developed and, in fact, does not yet exist. Promoting Tagalog as Filipino which Pinoy Big Brother does is contrary to the intent of the Constitution and discriminatory against the non-Tagalog languages.
In promoting Tagalog which they erroneously believe to be Filipino, to the extent of allowing Cebuano only in a minor dialogue and miniscule rules, they maybe going against the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Linguistic Rights, Art. 3 of which provides: 1. This Declaration considers the following to be inalienable personal rights which maybe exercised in any situation:
the right to be recognized as a member of a language community, the right to the use of one’s own language both in private and in public, the right to the use of one’s own name, the right to maintain and develop one’s own culture and all the other rights related to language, which are recognized in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights of the same date. Best Regards Atty. Manuel Lino Faelnar”
* * *
For email responses to this article, write to vsbobita@mozcom.com or vsbobita@gmail.com. His columns can be accessed through www.philstar.com.