Vă rog să citiți acest text selectat de mine, în speranța că vă poate interesa. Este o trducere automată a unui texte semnat de Alexandru Racu. Reproduc originalul mai jos. Cu prietenie, Dan Culcer
As in the aftermath of the initial publication of cartoons ridiculing what the founder of the Muslim religion, and following the tragic events today, I hear all kinds of comments that betrays stupidity, shallowness guilty and therefore an inability to understand the nature of the situation, otherwise very serious (especially if we consider that the recent attacks take place in a European Union that shakes the foundations of the economic crisis and the rise of various radicalism including the extreme right, who are thus given more grist to the mill ) we face.
Comments Gender: these cartoons should amuse, not to stir up hatred or goddess of reason and natural morality dictates to answer all with a cartoon caricature, not with bullets and hatred, and all sorts of poems that like all repeated wise and responsible people who govern us and inform us. In reality, me as a Christian, cartoons discussion amuses me not at all. And the argument that we would naturally dictate morality to answer the caricature of a caricature than all this talk ignores the fact that the parties who speak different languages (and I do not think the Islamist radical is one who is not in decent chip and responsible efforts comprehension and translation), or, more precisely, that what for some is a mere caricature, the other party is blasphemy.
You complain that treats a religious man as a mere caricature caricature, but treat it as blasphemy, actually means to accept the reproach that you dictate to your standards of judgment. That religion tells me to answer blasphemy of God forgive him that he does not know and that another tells him to respond by capital punishment is an indicator that, regardless whether we like it or not, whether it fits or not our imaginary liberal religions are different. Of course, the issue is very complex and in the current context, approaches urechiste (urechiste approach that, at least in my religion, I know better than that of Muslims, abound in the Romanian press whenever the opportunity arises ) are not only awkward, but also dangerous. Religious traditions are not homogeneous and are recorded in historical development paths that intersect without sync, canon law and sacred text hermeneutics are steps that imply otherwise fully contextualization and shades closet foreign jihad (Muslim or Christian that be). In general, those who speak from such events urechist as ahistorical, tolerance and intolerance of Christianity Islam should make a journey through time and try to publish cartoons of Jesus Christ in Calvin's Geneva and see what happens after that (or even in Restoration France, where, after years of slanderous institutionalized and systematic mascarare clergy and faithful Catholics, introduced the death penalty for blasphemy).
Beyond this, the fact is that for any man of common sense, whether believer or agnostic / atheist, a picture like this here is a sample of cretinism deliberately aggressive and offensive, that is an abuse of the freedom of expression, a symptom of degeneration of a civilization no longer able to distinguish between freedom and debauchery (economic, sexual, journalism, media, art, etc.) in addition, it is ridiculous to see how suddenly everyone is beating in the chest the status of non-negotiable value of freedom of expression, that like I live in a civilization which, like all civilizations, it has its prohibitions, some common sense (you are not allowed to post jokes Auschwitz) and other aberrant (you are not allowed to express publicly, at least in some places in the Western world, believe that homosexuality is a sin). As such, it must be said that what now appears our political leaders and opinion leaders is not freedom of expression but "secular" understood as freedom to insult, without any restrictions, sensitivity to people of different religious faiths. That total freedom of offending some (those wicked and reactionaries who believe in God and who can be spared only minor bit exotic multicultural mosaic, not like people who take their faith seriously the claims of universality speech) combined, often with open beak total ban when it comes to others (those who believe in good and progressive human rights). Unfortunately for us all, Muslims come to Europe are irresponsibly provoke the same name ideologies through which Europe was forbidden to build a realistic and responsible relationship with the Muslim world, taking into account the specificities and complexities of theological, cultural and concerning historical relationship between the two civilizations. Finally, this ideological obscurantism spread on a global scale, that the only legitimate social order is one which, on the one hand is based on an obstinate denial of cultural and historical differences, and, on the other hand, seeks to provide a libertatefaţă as much propriety and accountability are likely to lead to a global civil war or a dictatorship to global peace and security for us all.
Finally, God forgive him Charlie, God rest his all those who lost their lives today, but I'd rather be exempt from phrases like "nous sommes tous Charlie" and calls for unity between Christians and liberals without a compass, ie around European values, ie, around the sole European values is nihilistic freedom to denigrate any principle and value from their own tradition and ending with minimal requirements of hospitality, on behalf of pure self-determination.
After all, even though respect for freedom takes (despite the varied historical betrayal of Christianity) the essence of the Gospel message and we like it or not, not all the founders of religions as it relates to freedom (or violence), Christ did said he came into the world to promote freedom of expression but to "bear witness to the truth" (John 18, 37). In other words, if you really divorced freedom of European civilization has chosen to take the path of self-destruction progressive, do not ask me now to take part in the defense of European civilization, because I have nothing to defend. Neutralization liberal state was the one that led to the suppression of religious wars in Western Europe. Axiological neutralization of individuals in the name of freedom of self-determination and self-sufficiency institutional guarantee of the latter will lead to disaster, however. In the meantime, as no Muslim jihadists are all misfits, nor we Europeans are not (yet) all Charlie. The bad news is that our world are increasingly fewer people who are neither Charlie (plus those who identify with its principles) nor jihadists like bin Laden or unbalanced Breivik (plus soft versions of the latter). And, no matter how many I have, on television does not really show up, but eventually the position of the victim of terrorism.
Author: Alexandru Racu
As in the aftermath of the initial publication of cartoons ridiculing what the founder of the Muslim religion, and following the tragic events today, I hear all kinds of comments that betrays stupidity, shallowness guilty and therefore an inability to understand the nature of the situation, otherwise very serious (especially if we consider that the recent attacks take place in a European Union that shakes the foundations of the economic crisis and the rise of various radicalism including the extreme right, who are thus given more grist to the mill ) we face.
Comments Gender: these cartoons should amuse, not to stir up hatred or goddess of reason and natural morality dictates to answer all with a cartoon caricature, not with bullets and hatred, and all sorts of poems that like all repeated wise and responsible people who govern us and inform us. In reality, me as a Christian, cartoons discussion amuses me not at all. And the argument that we would naturally dictate morality to answer the caricature of a caricature than all this talk ignores the fact that the parties who speak different languages (and I do not think the Islamist radical is one who is not in decent chip and responsible efforts comprehension and translation), or, more precisely, that what for some is a mere caricature, the other party is blasphemy.
You complain that treats a religious man as a mere caricature caricature, but treat it as blasphemy, actually means to accept the reproach that you dictate to your standards of judgment. That religion tells me to answer blasphemy of God forgive him that he does not know and that another tells him to respond by capital punishment is an indicator that, regardless whether we like it or not, whether it fits or not our imaginary liberal religions are different. Of course, the issue is very complex and in the current context, approaches urechiste (urechiste approach that, at least in my religion, I know better than that of Muslims, abound in the Romanian press whenever the opportunity arises ) are not only awkward, but also dangerous. Religious traditions are not homogeneous and are recorded in historical development paths that intersect without sync, canon law and sacred text hermeneutics are steps that imply otherwise fully contextualization and shades closet foreign jihad (Muslim or Christian that be). In general, those who speak from such events urechist as ahistorical, tolerance and intolerance of Christianity Islam should make a journey through time and try to publish cartoons of Jesus Christ in Calvin's Geneva and see what happens after that (or even in Restoration France, where, after years of slanderous institutionalized and systematic mascarare clergy and faithful Catholics, introduced the death penalty for blasphemy).
Beyond this, the fact is that for any man of common sense, whether believer or agnostic / atheist, a picture like this here is a sample of cretinism deliberately aggressive and offensive, that is an abuse of the freedom of expression, a symptom of degeneration of a civilization no longer able to distinguish between freedom and debauchery (economic, sexual, journalism, media, art, etc.) in addition, it is ridiculous to see how suddenly everyone is beating in the chest the status of non-negotiable value of freedom of expression, that like I live in a civilization which, like all civilizations, it has its prohibitions, some common sense (you are not allowed to post jokes Auschwitz) and other aberrant (you are not allowed to express publicly, at least in some places in the Western world, believe that homosexuality is a sin). As such, it must be said that what now appears our political leaders and opinion leaders is not freedom of expression but "secular" understood as freedom to insult, without any restrictions, sensitivity to people of different religious faiths. That total freedom of offending some (those wicked and reactionaries who believe in God and who can be spared only minor bit exotic multicultural mosaic, not like people who take their faith seriously the claims of universality speech) combined, often with open beak total ban when it comes to others (those who believe in good and progressive human rights). Unfortunately for us all, Muslims come to Europe are irresponsibly provoke the same name ideologies through which Europe was forbidden to build a realistic and responsible relationship with the Muslim world, taking into account the specificities and complexities of theological, cultural and concerning historical relationship between the two civilizations. Finally, this ideological obscurantism spread on a global scale, that the only legitimate social order is one which, on the one hand is based on an obstinate denial of cultural and historical differences, and, on the other hand, seeks to provide a libertatefaţă as much propriety and accountability are likely to lead to a global civil war or a dictatorship to global peace and security for us all.
Finally, God forgive him Charlie, God rest his all those who lost their lives today, but I'd rather be exempt from phrases like "nous sommes tous Charlie" and calls for unity between Christians and liberals without a compass, ie around European values, ie, around the sole European values is nihilistic freedom to denigrate any principle and value from their own tradition and ending with minimal requirements of hospitality, on behalf of pure self-determination.
After all, even though respect for freedom takes (despite the varied historical betrayal of Christianity) the essence of the Gospel message and we like it or not, not all the founders of religions as it relates to freedom (or violence), Christ did said he came into the world to promote freedom of expression but to "bear witness to the truth" (John 18, 37). In other words, if you really divorced freedom of European civilization has chosen to take the path of self-destruction progressive, do not ask me now to take part in the defense of European civilization, because I have nothing to defend. Neutralization liberal state was the one that led to the suppression of religious wars in Western Europe. Axiological neutralization of individuals in the name of freedom of self-determination and self-sufficiency institutional guarantee of the latter will lead to disaster, however. In the meantime, as no Muslim jihadists are all misfits, nor we Europeans are not (yet) all Charlie. The bad news is that our world are increasingly fewer people who are neither Charlie (plus those who identify with its principles) nor jihadists like bin Laden or unbalanced Breivik (plus soft versions of the latter). And, no matter how many I have, on television does not really show up, but eventually the position of the victim of terrorism.
Author: Alexandru Racu
Scuze, dar eu nu sunt Charlie!
ianuarie 8, 2015
Ca şi în perioada ce a urmat publicării iniţiale a caricaturilor ce îl ridiculizau pe fondatorul religiei musulmane, şi în urma evenimentelor tragice de astăzi, aud tot felul de comentarii ce trădează stupizenie, superficialitate vinovată şi deci o incapacitate de a înţelege natura situaţiei, altminteri extrem de grave (mai ales dacă ţinem cont că recentele atacuri au loc într-o Uniune Europeană care se clatină din temelii pe fondul crizei economice şi a ascensiunii diverselor radicalisme, inclusiv cele de extremă dreaptă, cărora li se dă astfel şi mai multă apă la moară), cu care ne confruntăm.
Comentarii de gen: aceste caricaturi ar trebui să amuze, nu să stârnească ura sau, zeiţa raţiune şi morala naturală ne dictează să răspundem la caricatură tot cu o caricatură, nu cu gloanţe şi ură, şi tot felul de poezii d-astea repetate de toţi oamenii înţelepţi şi responsabili care ne guvernează şi ne informează. În realitate, pe mine ca şi creştin, caricaturile in discutie nu mă amuză deloc. Iar teza conform căreia ne-ar dicta morala naturală să răspundem la caricatură cel mult tot cu o caricatură ignoră faptul că aici vorbim de părţi care vorbesc limbaje diferite (şi chiar nu cred că partea islamistă radicală este singura care nu face, în chip decent şi responsabil, eforturi de comprehensiune şi traducere), sau, mai precis, că ceea ce pentru o parte este o simplă caricatură, pentru cealaltă parte este blasfemie.
A-i reproşa unui om religios că nu tratează caricatura ca pe o simplă caricatură, ci o tratează ca pe o blasfemie, înseamnă de fapt să-i reproşezi că nu acceptă să-i dictezi tu lui standardele tale de judecată. Că mie religia îmi spune să răspund la blasfemie cu iartă-l Doamne că n-o şti ce face şi că altuia îi spune să răspundă prin aplicarea pedepsei capitale e un indicator al faptului că, independent dacă ne place sau nu, dacă asta se încadrează sau nu în imaginarul nostru liberal, religiile sunt diferite. Desigur, chestiunea este foarte complexă, iar în contextual actual, abordările urechiste (abordări urechiste care, cel puţin în cazul religiei mele, pe care o cunosc mult mai bine decât pe cea a musulmanilor, abundă în presa românească ori de câte ori se iveşte ocazia) nu sunt doar jenante ci şi periculoase. Tradiţiile religioase nu sunt omogene şi sunt înscrise în trasee de evoluţie istorică care se intersectează fără să se sincronizeze, dreptul canonic şi hermeneutica textului sacru sunt demersuri ce comportă contextualizări şi nuanţe altminteri pe deplin străine jihadistului de debara (că o fi musulman sau creştin). În general, cei care în urma unor astfel de evenimente vorbesc urechist, întrucât anistoric, de toleranţa creştinismului şi intoleranţa Islamului, ar trebui să facă o călătorie în timp şi să încerce să publice caricaturi cu Iisus Hristos în Geneva lui Calvin şi să vadă ce păţesc după aia (sau chiar în Franţa Restauraţiei, unde, după ani de zile de blasfemiere instituţionalizată şi mascarare sistematică a clerului şi credincioşilor catolici, s-a introdus pedeapsa cu moartea pentru blasfemie).
Dincolo de aceste aspecte, cert este că pentru orice om de bun simţ, fie el credincios sau agnostic/ateu, o imagine precum aceasta de aici reprezintă o mostră de cretinism agresiv şi în mod deliberat ofensator, adică un mod de a abuza de libertatea de exprimare, un simptom de degenerare al unei civilizaţii incapabile să mai facă distincţia dintre libertate şi destrăbălare (economică, sexuală, publicistică, mediatică, artistică, ş.a.m.d.) În plus, este ridicol să vezi cum dintr-odată toată lumea se bate în piept cu statutul de valoare nenegociabilă al libertăţii de exprimare, asta de parcă n-am trăi într-o civilizaţie care, ca toate civilizaţiile, îşi are interdicţiile ei, unele dintre ele de bun simţ (n-ai voie să publici glume cu Auschwitz), iar altele aberante (n-ai voie să-ţi exprimi public, cel puţin în anumite locuri din lumea occidentală, părerea că homosexualitatea este un păcat). Ca atare, trebuie spus că, ceea ce apără acum liderii noştri politici şi liderii de opinie nu este libertatea de exprimare ci “laicitatea” înţeleasă ca libertate de a insulta, fără niciun fel de restricţii, sensibilitatea religioasă a oamenilor de diferite religii şi confesiuni. Adică libertatea totală de a-i ofensa pe unii (ăia răi şi reacţionari care cred în Dumnezeu şi care pot fi menajaţi doar ca părticică minoritar exotică a mozaicului multicultural, nicidecum ca oameni care îşi iau în serios credinţa ca discurs cu pretenţii de universalitate) combinată, deseori, cu interdicţia totală de a deschide pliscul când vine vorba de alţii (ăia buni şi progresişti care cred în drepturile omului). Din nefericire pentru noi toţi, musulmanii veniţi în Europa sunt întărâtaţi în mod iresponsabil în numele aceleiaşi ideologii datorită căreia Europei i-a fost interzis să-şi construiască o relaţie realistă şi responsabilă cu lumea musulmană, care să ţină cont de specificităţile şi complexităţile teologice, culturale şi istorice ce privesc raportul dintre cele două civilizaţii. În cele din urmă, acest obscurantism ideologic propagat la scară planetară, conform căruia singura ordine socială legitimă este cea care, pe de o parte se bazează pe o negare obstinată a diferenţelor cultural-istorice, iar, pe de altă parte, caută să asigure o cât mai mare libertatefaţă de decenţă şi responsabilitate, riscă să ducă fie la un război civil global, fie la o dictatură globală pentru liniştea şi siguranţa noastră a tuturor.
În fine, Dumnezeu să-l ierte pe Charlie, Dumnezeu să-i odihnească pe toţi cei care şi-au pierdut astăzi viaţa, dar aş prefera să fiu scutit de fraze de gen “nous sommes tous Charlie” şi de apeluri la unitate, între creştini şi liberali fără busolă, în jurul valorilor europene adică, altfel spus, în jurul unicei valori europene care este libertatea nihilistă de a denigra orice principiu şi valoare, începând cu propria tradiţie şi terminând cu exigenţele minimale ale ospitalităţii, în numele autodeterminării pure.
În definitiv, chiar dacă respectul faţă de libertate ţine (în ciuda variilor trădări istorice ale creştinătăţii) de esenţa mesajului Evanghelic şi, că ne place sau nu, nu toţi întemeietorii de religii se raportează la fel la libertate (sau la violenţă), Hristos n-a spus că a venit în lume ca să promoveze libertatea de exprimare ci ca să “mărturisească despre Adevăr” (Ioan 18, 37). Cu alte cuvinte, dacă divorţând libertatea de adevăr civilizaţia europeană a ales să ia calea autodistrugerii progresive, să nu mi se ceară acum să iau parte la apărarea civilizaţiei europene, deoarece nu am ce să apăr. Neutralizarea liberală a statului a fost cea care a dus la curmarea războaielor religioase din Europa occidentală. Neutralizarea axiologică a indivizilor în numele libertăţii de autodeterminare şi a autosuficienţei garantării instituţionale a acesteia din urmă ne va duce însă la dezastru. Până una-alta, aşa cum nici musulmanii nu sunt cu toţii jihadişti dezaxaţi, nici noi, europenii, nu suntem (încă) cu toţii Charlie. Partea proastă pentru lumea noastră este că suntem din ce în ce mai puţini cei care nu suntem nici Charlie (plus cei care se identifică cu principiile sale), nici jihadişti dezaxaţi gen bin Laden sau Breivik (plus versiunile mai soft ale acestora din urmă). Şi, oricât de mulţi am fi, la televizor nu prea apărem, decât eventual în postura de vicitme ale terorismului.
Autor: Alexandru Racu
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu