Resurrection of the King-God

Nestor Ravilas

“Suportahan natin ang gobyerno dahil niloklok ito ng Diyos” (Let us support this government for God has put it in power) – blustered by one religious supporter of the current Duterte regime.

The beheading of Charles I of England could be monumental event that has proven the doctrine of divine right of the king is mere human construct. None has foreseen it to happen; neither the leader of parliamentary army, Oliver Cromwell, nor Charles I himself. The fusion of temporal and divine power in the throne of England which has spawned an abusive and tyrant line of monarchs has finally come to an end. England is now under the parliament with Cromwell as its head. Soon after the fleeting reign of Cromwell’s parliament, however, the people clamored again for the return of the divine right absolutism. Thus, Charles II, son of the beheaded Charles I, revived the throne under the religious emblem of “divine right to rule”. Blood spilled all over again, first of those jurists who had sent his father to the gallows.

Continue reading →

Religious Symbols and Violence Reflection On Luke 9:1-9

Nestor Ravilas

The problem with religious imagination borne from oppressed and tormented communities is that it is either equally oppressive or, even worst. And since these religious symbols survived and outlived their own procreators, they transcend time and space to address and shape modern societies. Take for instance the case of the West, known to be the champion of secular democratic regimes, reminded by Carl Schmitt that their touted concept of the modern theory of the state are actually secularized theological concepts. This amounts to the fact that despite all the attempts of the prophets of rationality to either dismiss or reinterpret the phenomenon dubs now as post-secularism, it undeniably proves that secularist project fails, and religion, along with its metaphors and symbols, remain with us even after the so called, Great Separation.

Continue reading →

State of Exceptions and the Sovereign Decision: The King-Pope of the House of Davao

Nestor Ravilas

All discussions on political theology from Carl Schmitt to Slavoj Zizek inevitably center on the person of the sovereign, says Graham Hamill. It comes with no surprise, therefore, why modern rulers remain enchanted with the glorious days of the Caesaropapists, those sovereign kings whose absolute rule made them subject to no one for they claimed to have both political and divine authority. The closest we remember are the English monarchs from Henry VIII, to James I, to Charles I, and James II, all asserted the divine right to rule. This history of political theology, where absolute power secured by divine ordination persists in our culture like the fruit in the middle of the garden where all are craving to have a taste of it.

Continue reading →

Are you Ready for Senators Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa and Bong Go?: the Power that Decides and Creates our Politicians

Nestor Ravilas

The swarming of clowns and charlatans in politics is quite alarming. More alarming is the fact that they are winning, and many of them have already turned the government into circus more than a decade ago. Luckily, such phenomenon is not unique in this country. Meaning, ours is not the only house that is being pulled down gradually by termites.

Continue reading →

Criminalizing Children: The Pinnacle of Idiocy of Philippine Politics

By Nestor Ravilas

I don’t really get it, and it is giving me pain trying to comprehend what the hell their rationale for lowering the age of criminal liability to age 9. A person cannot marry in the Philippines under the age of 18, and still in need of parental consent when she is 18. She might insists having a full weight of her decision and well prepared to face the travails of marriage, but the state intervenes and assumes to itself the decision to bar her to consummate her wish. The moral argument is that children lack the necessary degree of maturity and sense of responsibility needed on such huge decision, thus depriving them of that freedom to marry before reaching 21, the age that frees them from parental consent. Then why all of a sudden this government is hell-bent to lower criminal liability to age 9? You cannot marry until the age 21, but a 9-year-old child can already be held criminally liable? Or they will amend later the family code and allow a child of 9 years of age to marry to do away with the contradiction?

Continue reading →