(From torrential crescent moon, hermeneutics 9)
Posted by Torrential, February 28 at 4:12 p.m.
Dear crescent moon,
I am trying to publish your messages, deciphering and chronic, and I do not know how I am missed the February 20, yet I'm sure I read the beginning, but as you would put it in question with great vehemence Patriarch Shenouda III which I am attached because he is my co-religionists and for love my friends Copts, I ought not to read longer. I'll meet you there briefly to what I want to major points. Prior
with some answers that will follow, convey to your wife and daughter congratulations for the birth of twins, which you find yourself being the grandfather by marriage. I congratulate you also bear responsibility in your womb paternal alliance.
But back to our businesses more traditionally politico. First, you do prior
cowardice of some scientists who provide it should not "come out against the kings of the time," and you add that the attitude of the patriarch resembles that of these scholars. It should answer you that this attitude is founded in Christianity on a verse from St. Paul, wishing that he be sued in his capacity as a Roman citizen, urged the faithful to "respect the authority of the state" because "all power comes from God," said another verse: "You would not on me power if you had not received from on high, "says Christ to Pilate. The latter specification allows to overcome the ambiguity is necessarily a power allowed by God, since nothing of what takes place under heaven could not have happened without his permission, which is not necessarily approval. I recognize that this is a distinction well casuistry and that Christianity was able to attract the disapproval of "clear mind" because it manifests From the outset a very special taste for this kind of specious reasoning. This applies even to his condemnation of slavery, never ruled in a form which admits of no discussion. St. Paul is sending Onesimus to Philemon that he's freed by an act of free will. Without doubt, do not it was a tactic of outright condemn slavery while he was one of the constituents of laborers and especially the ancient city of the Roman Empire! Religion should not always seek to join the clever. Especially to join the clever, it is likely that one enters a general spirit of rallying to injustice pretexts that are really only defending its interests. Thus Leo XIII has demanded that Catholic parties align themselves very anticlerical Third Republic for the support it in its determination to recover his papal states. In the case of the "Pope" of the Copts, he appreciated the fact qu'Hosni Mubarak was the husband of one of his followers? He wanted to remain faithful to the teaching of St. Paul in the line of scholars from across Egypt who did not want that one goes against the "kings of the time"? He feared that a regime born of a revolution only weakens the already precarious situation of the faithful under his care? He wanted to preserve more of its private interests? I can not tell you, not knowing these interests. However, it is undeniable that a country fair, free and sovereign can not tolerate the patriarch of a minority religion, even if it is legitimate to seek a certainty that it gets obviously not the state, has a parallel police force. Just as I am about your opinion on the condition that religious authorities should bear in prononciamento electioneering. Although it is sometimes good to know that think what. But those opinions should not argue injunctions. Moreover, the religious authorities immiction in political matters serving the religion. We rightly criticizes the French bishops to hold a discourse whose spiritual content is relatively low, while the bishops of France continue to describe a company, they know that the look through official visits , which resemble those of ministers, churches or factories, or to receive notes they control to sociologists. Our bishops sociologists are unable to produce a spiritual discourse consists, are partly responsible for the bottoming spiritual depression and our European Christian. It is true that spirituality innervates holistic manner as you would with others, without separation dissociative lifetime of an individual. However, the speech of a religious leader should be "spiritual first." The innate religious sense of the faithful no mistake, that have neither followed the scientists as you complained of, and participated in the uprising Egypt to the Copts, to make their bodies a cordon sanitaire for their compatriots in prayer, as we Catholics do not always follow our Pope infallible when he gives the impression of wandering. And we have reason to do so, since one of the first words that said the first pope, St. Peter in this case in his opening speech after Pentecost, was this:
"Should we not obey God rather than men "?
Copts attended the Egyptian revolution. It is this aspect of religious coexistence, which seems more important than watching the anathemas of the learned or the patriarchal conservatism of a religious leader who is also, unfortunately, that of a police, I ask god for forgiveness him if the rumors are confirmed and are based.
Let your invitation to a foray in the political and economic before returning later in the religious sphere is definitely one, possibly by partitioning, but also because I have a faith to move mountains (you must have faith to move mountains and love to comfort and support world), where I feel most comfortable. You say that the "enemy" (for you, it is the Jewish state) would have required that any successor regime to that of Mubarak, it does not matter for Egypt to reconsider its signing of camp david. First I applaud the pragmatics of your proposed "minimalist reading" of the treaty. I am aware that for you, this "reading miniimaliste" is a first step, but any refusal of the "politics of the worst" is an act of goodwill that is, if not prevent a state of war, not to make everyone has rebuilt his forces. By law, I said that I do not see what would prevent a sovereign country to denounce a treaty that is unfair. We could even refine the analysis by saying, for example, if the point of view of French constitutional law, the President of the Republic is the guarantor of the continuity of the state and the observance of treaties, this is only in the case where there is no regime change, the following arrangements are perfectly free to assign other powers to the President of the Republic, even delete this if it seemed more necessary. There is no such character of irreversibility in the Treaties that should result in the sense that compliance with a treaty requires a State to escape its history. What of the Camp David? The fact is that day when I write these lines, it has not been terminated, but it has even been reaffirmed by Marshal Tantawi. Here a question arises: how the treaty was it revealed a reproach to the removal of essential system which Mubarak was the chief representative? It seems that the protesters have placed little emphasis on the importance of the priority or terminate any event. But I'm not hiding that uttering that remark, I am far from being aware of all the slogans that were chanted on Tahrir Square, partly because the game rules of selective information that I receive from France, filtered information. Then, the Camp David agreements are literally a cease-fire. Complicity with a regime favorable to Israel (I use the word "complicity" to adopt your point of view, the time of analysis), agreement to cease-fire will be extended to economic cooperation, this is an avatar of international relations built independently of the will of the people. This cooperation should it continue, should it stop? That both parties, that is to say, ultimately the two peoples, to decide. The answer is not necessarily negative as certainly as can be seen here assume. Yet there are strong presumptions that it be, let us take note, at least it is the long term, if the feeling of blackmail continues to be given to a sovereign people, and trade under supervision, quasi-compulsory, intrusive the sovereignty of either party, here, clearly, Egypt. The important thing is to safeguard the essentials. Now what is the point? In my opinion, three things: the cease-fire, of course, but also the end of the blockade of Gaza and the free movement of any country to which the sovereign state of Egypt will allow it, if possible in all countries, with tariffs that belongs to Egypt to set, the waters of the Suez Canal. So it's rather good news that Iran has regained the right to circulate. It would also be good news if a settlement could be with Israel.
I will develop the same kind of theories about the relative tranquility that is left to Mubarak, a refugee at his residence in Sharm El-Sheikh. Ultimately, I'd like to say that we derive from it to be good looking, tried and sentenced? I know that revolutions do not feel they have made to meet these sorts of vengeance. But these sorts of vengeance are subsequently determined to be the curse of these revolutions. On a different scale is the refund by the European Union of assets it would have unfairly monopolized the property of "Egypt long". This restitution is legal, it does, as they say, a respecter of persons, and this is why we must encourage. On the other hand, She pays a debt real material and quantifiable, not a moral damages, since the end of World War II, it has consistently sought to quantify financially to repair the irreparable. Repair of money obeys moral evil motives have little to do with the injury for which it is proposed to compensate the damage that this, which eventually assimilate into a racket, be made over sixty years by Israel towards Germany or by Algeria to France. Morality, because material is the restitution of Jewish property unjustly captured during the war, but immoral is the compensation by the fact that a state abundant in the feeding financially to enable it to exist and to be frog who wants to become bigger than beef. I carry the same conviction towards Algeria who ever does the balance of benefits and looting made during the colonial period and, not subject to verification, but against any attempt to inventory, requires France on behalf of repentance, it funds for repairs a State which is not even governed by good financial police, as the money he earns is redistributed to a population that is not obliged to have, the only horizon of hope, the desire to leave a country, hers, that is no more hospitable, as is condemned to idleness and sloth, I tell you, but it is also true of Europe, the youth of Egypt "long", which in its traditions to have, since what might be called the dawn of time mankind been able to cultivate his oasis. I do not know whether I want with you to "egypt long" it shows the world that work must be Arabic. I say, without wanting to hurt you, but as that word for the character immemorial egypt, if consensus could be no one tried to confiscate it, I want to "egypt long" that work there again become Coptic Egyptian People, National, meaning not a plebeian, but not reducible to the Islamic dimension of society and nation. Because if you do not want to work again as Arabic, you introduce a selectivity racialist whose duty of every member of the human race that claims to fight against racism, should protect those same human dignity, wherever comes the propensity or claim to domination or example. As a point to anticipate the answer I wanted to let you in my letter which will be shortened by this sentence, which is not a luxury, believe me, "the lights" did not as you say, was only a reaction against the obscurantist Christian. Remember that Voltaire also called one of her highly controversial piece, to the point that some Muslim league wanted to ban it is studied in class and in France, "Mahomed or fanaticism." The Arab racialism is a form of fanaticism, like all claims to the superiority of any model socioreligious whatsoever, including the Christian model, let us agree. Evil spirits have recently argued that Islam was constantly changing between fanaticism and fatalism. Maybe he is trying to show us a third way which is more faithful to what he originally wanted to do and the adventures of a story that forced him to be expelled from the period of the prophet meckoise prevented him from achieving. The West will always be a tendency to fanaticism which he distrusted the desire to pay his misdeeds and corrupt recordings. I'm not saying that the West does not know these desires to do justice to himself, the revolutionary times have sufficiently proved that he was not stingy, and it went up to the terror that was not only a purification aristocratic, but ideological cleansing. At least if you go back to principles, Christianity, challenging the ruling in the life and future by stating that he relies on God for vengeance, to calm the nerves and instincts of vindictive who wish to understand it no retribution acts in this world, quiet there these passions. Or, if he does not calm, at least not encourage them does not it. I hear you answer me by that, by the laws of the contradictory injunction, by suppressing the just revenge, it exacerbates the contrary. There is truth in this paradox that you love to overwhelm me. The man is a paradox and fabric, as I like to say, between heaven and the paradox, there is even family radical. Somehow, it is radical to situate in paradise paradox. Pun? Not only. Nothing is simple. We, in our analysis, trying to reconcile two things: try the ideality of the principle that it actually produces fruit, but also know that it's origin to derive the consequences. In this second fact, an injunction can not love, as a perversion of human nature made by the original precept addressed to him, an injunction degenerate universal love in war. But I'm telling you about universal love, I am not unmindful that, often, I m'envenime, while you're begging me to love you and that to encourage me, you speak of curses. I address thee in return while exhort you not to yield to the spirit of revenge. Paradox!
But I can not let go for example, except to put on the account of a certain fanaticism to me that you disputed the right to mourn the horrific massacre by sticking, here we go again, a Polish priest whose you tell me to expect the survey, why? To find out if he does not deserve his fate? If he did not deserve because he was a pedophile? You suppose pedophile, one thing is certain: he died murdered. Am looking forward to watch and mind your article on the order of universal love that castrates the point of causing an excess of depravity in our Christian morals. If this is about the merits of this future article, I can only approve the substance. But meanwhile, you do not want me m'émeuve facts, against which you propose to me suspicion. I'm émeuve mean that it definitely, for a Christian life of a Christian is more important than another man? Definitely not, Crescent Moon, where do you take it? The Christian is not in his genes indescribable personal election would represent of humanity. For Christians, there is only one representative of humanity who is also "the son of man" (well before it was declared, following pre-Christian Platonic intuitions, the son of God). This single representative of humanity who performs the type of the perfect man, as does to your eyes Mohamed is the Christ. The Christian does not claim to share Christ's messianic perfection. At most it can be configured like Him, to be reflective of the front light, it grows in holiness, to be at the time of death, transfigured in Him to participate in its deification. Him be configured verbally, but also Christ, praying for you if you do not recognize, so that the face of God you revere is the one by which you're saved! There is no representation that plays there! So why dwell on the Christians persecuted? Firstly because they are numerous. Whatever glory facing Turkey, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, yet older than the Ottoman Empire, continues to be confined and to deal with harassment that does not allow the full development of an ancient religion , a criterion that is dear to you and that you can not oppose the unbearable new exogenous Pentecostal evangelism and Yankee. The Muslim renounced to become a Christian, what treatment fanatics inflict your religion they? But I stop is my mantra. The second reason that makes me interested to persecuted Christians is simply natural that they are my co-religionists. The third reason, quite personally, makes me answer you on this in the case of the Polish priest is that I always felt ill at ease with the fact that we surrenchère of persecution Christian as a "primer", according to thy word I find quite happy if I may say in who is so little, I do not know what conversion doleful. I am not of those who love the daily shelling martyrs of yesterday and today because I think there is a reflex unhealthy. However, insofar as I am engaged with you on the path of this dialogue up in the main house on a public blog, I would not want to be the host of one of our persecutors, if is active, at least some kind of apology or understanding of the motives of those who engage in these abuses. This, in the name of honor that I owe to my Christian brothers and not the higher value would have their Life swath compared to that of any man who dies, I'm, if I go to open your analysis to the point of hosting public under the responsibility of my name that I must terminate it.
A final word that is more consensual and for Jean-Paul Delevoye. I myself heard a week ago on "France cuulture," and I heard a man with an accent evident sincerity that his duties as mediator of the Republic have changed. And say that this man has experienced the first term of an ordinary politician, contesting the chairmanship of the RPR, which was refused to be assigned, it can not be invented, Michele Alliot-Marie, on the pretext that Jean-Paul Delevoye appeared flat. It was true then. It is not so, obviously. Mediation has made him insecure measure that our society faces. Precariousness destitute even of language, a precarious almost mute, which means that this man has learned to be silent than to speak as much, I like your expression, which joined a prayer of Cardinal Verdier Spirit St., where he asks Him to inspire him what to say, how he should say and what he should shut up. Jean-Paul Delevoye thinks he in the shoes of a president? I think he has ignored Every career. And yet, you're right, it is likely that we will bring about and prayed for it is envy, unless Dominique de Villepin did show some consistency with it is really back to himself. Here he vertebra his political agenda, not only an understanding of what is happening in the Arab world he knows, even if only through the front door of poetry, not the least noble, but a proposal to establish a minimum income substantial social, him, man of the CPE, just in establishing it as it is in that it suggests this universal income . Let us not forget however, that is also the man of the "state of emergency," lorsqu'éclatèrent riots in the suburbs! What did he need to look for this symbol? According to a bundle of corroborating rumors (rumors are all false rumors to be), it is also the man a sovereign contempt, feet on the table, treats all its employees and those that he observes waving of "bastards" who have no "balls". Franz-Olivier Giesberg, relayed by Didier door that I like, adding that he also was the author of this memorable sentence:
"France wants it takes it, it itches in the basin.
It would be that, Gaullism, and it may be that, the future President of France? So Villepin Delevoye? God does not put us in the state having to vote for anyone! You tell me that I make a negative prayer. That God creates a man! Or that our thought is strengthened to the point of lead or, not afraid to be megalomaniacs, to become! Your
torrential praying with you and for France to become a man
0 comments:
Post a Comment