I am a Christian bigot, and I appreciate Marx. Nice way to start, right? By reading this statement, one might say that is an antithesis automatically. Because for most people a Christian bigot by definition (which bigotry can be applied to many categories, even misinterpreting the term), it could not even tolerate the sight of the Capital, the Communist Manifesto and all that relates to that broad political movement dismissed with the simple word of communism (I'm going to explain politics, hate). The opposite is true for a communist, or could never endure the sight the Bible or any religious text. Bear in the sense to refrain from trimming critical acidic and sentences, as if you had the supreme evil opposite.
All this to introduce the concept of relativism and blind intolerance. Two things that, well before 2012, will bring ruin to the company. These two gentlemen are once knocked on the door of religion (not the first time, eh), triggering a real storm that involved some other "sectors." The crime, in a nutshell, is this: the threat by the Rev. Terry Jones, of burning the Quran on the 11th September. A day that brings back painful memories, of course. But it also brings to question the human inability to live together in harmony for the common good. Even if nothing is done, the actions by both the religious world and politically and I noticed there were little tolerance (except by the Catholics, I have to admit this, and of Obama himself).
The point is that in this modern society everyone wants to do but continue to live in the modern prejudice that you charged the past ages. Express an opinion or even against modernity with a traditional feeling, with conviction, is synonymous with bigotry and respectability and inversely tradition irrationally refuses to accept the innovations. Because everything is right and wrong at the same time, depends on the person, by culture and society. And any attempt to reconcile different views and to find points of encounter for the good of all, it seems unnecessary and ridiculous. Every time you mention religion to an atheist it feels almost meet in terms of contempt or neglect, and vice versa for an atheist of the faithful is the fruit of evil. So also among the opposing political camps. We will stick to preconceived idea and you do not want to go further.
But Islam is a religion inhuman, I hear. By nature intolerant, disrespectful of women and against all modernity. This is fanaticism, not religion. In the Koran there is nothing that fundamentalists practice and tradition does not is something imposed by force. Some time ago, Donna Moderna intervened a theologian who explained his Islamic religion with sincerity and clarity. If there are people who interpret the sacred text literally, and give it powers which by its nature can not have, does not mean that religion is the same stuff from the garbage. And if in the name of this religion is wrong to other people, it can not be automatically condemned. Why all wrong. Because bigotry is bad for everyone, whatever their social background, political and religious views.
So you go back to the license application. Burning a text regarded as contrary to Catholic doctrine was the practice in the Middle Ages and the Index of Forbidden Books was abolished only by the Second Vatican Council. But Christianity was certainly not the only "motion" to enforce censorship. The cultural and political censorship has always existed and has used very unorthodox methods. The destruction of a work was the lesser punishment. There were people who paid with their lives to defend their position, people of various religious and political positions, and none of the opponents you ever wondered if there could be a meeting place, an alternative to destruction. We are just so different, we men can not share the same value?
The answer, at least in my opinion, is that we are different but also similar. Even cultures that seem to have nothing in common originally looked like and continue to express themselves in similar behaviors. Substantially all men seek happiness and serenity, this is obvious. Seek Him in different sources, which may be different religions, and this should not and can not be disputed. Instead you can act on the social, human beings understood as a person. Bioethics exists for this, to protect life in all its forms, overcoming cultural differences and religious and ethical relativism grim. Then of course those who have particular beliefs and values, use them as the primary basis of his ethics, this is a human right. But this not a priori justified criticism of different views and refusal to find a middle ground acceptable to all.
Certainly it is not easy for anyone to open up different. People tend to line up sharply from one side or another in every aspect of life, seeing everything black or white. In terms of social and human I can not. And even as political and religious does not hurt to evaluate objectively false doctrine and also contrary to that followed and to identify the strengths and weaknesses. We all have a reason, just use it without prejudice. Prejudices that are not excusable with the upbringing of any kind. The ability to reason and critical thinking are learned over time. I have been educated to Christianity and morality "old", I have freely chosen to continue to follow these values \u200b\u200bbut I want to see clearly in every issue. The only responsible for the injury is the deliberate ignorance and accepted by choice.
So the Christian who is supposed to be bigoted and antimaterialist, may well find it useful to Marx's thought in economic and social fields, and in turn a follower of Marxist ideas (I use the term cautiously, because Marx himself rejected the idea the base of the so-called Marxism) can find positive values \u200b\u200bin the social doctrine of the Church and the teachings of equality and solidarity of Christ. Everyone keeping their original characteristics, as it should be.
point out that, politically, this is hardly feasible. It would, in the words of my old professor of philosophy, the party of Bra (voted number, please! ^_^): Holds his right hand, holding the left, and also holds the bulk of the center. Better safe than sorry at the level of ethics and morality.
0 comments:
Post a Comment