By Jaira Lou Batangan
In the face of controversy, our reactions often mirror our personal beliefs and values. As we grapple with the actions of Pura Luka Vega, a figure who has sparked much debate, we are confronted with a choice. We can react with indignation, as dictated by societal expectations; we can adopt a stance of neutrality, recognizing the spectrum of ideas within public acceptance; or we can opt for compassion, upholding our collective moral responsibility.
The initial surge of anger that swept through us in response to Pura Luka Vega’s performance is a reaction that’s all too human. This is not surprising. In the vibrant tapestry of Filipino culture, where threads of faith and tradition are woven tightly together, dressing as Jesus Christ and performing a rock rendition of “Ama Namin” during a drag performance can naturally be perceived as offensive or disrespectful to these religious sensibilities.
While the outrage is understandable, it is not the only possible response. Others just let things be, with hopes that Vega’s performance would eventually push boundaries and cause a potential shift in social acceptance. While the current reaction might be anger, future responses could become more understanding or even accepting, acknowledging the fluidity of societal norms and the potential for change, which then could play a crucial role in shifting public opinion and expanding societal acceptance in regard to LGBTQ+ rights.
Being neutral doesn’t mean condoning or condemning the act, but rather empathizing with the public reaction; it is a societal discourse from a political point of view.
Yet, in essence, neutrality is just a delicate balance between passion and the chill of indifference.
Or we can opt for a path less traveled: the path of kindness, where we recognize our collective moral responsibility to treat each other with respect and understanding, even when we get offended or when we disagree. Collective moral responsibility refers to the shared ethical obligations we have as a society. It’s the idea that we are all part of a larger community, and our actions and reactions can contribute to the overall moral climate of that community.
When we choose kindness over anger and neutrality, we are making a conscious decision to promote a more empathetic and understanding society.
Choosing kindness, in this regard, means acknowledging the offense caused, but also recognizing Vega’s right to freedom of expression. It might mean engaging in open and respectful dialogue about why the performance was offensive. It might mean advocating for a society where individuals can express themselves without fear of backlash, while also respecting the deeply held beliefs of others.
Choosing kindness doesn’t mean we have to agree with Pura Luka Vega, but it does mean recognizing their humanity and responding in a way that upholds our collective moral responsibility. After all, church is an institution—faith is personal.
THE BARRISTER 