I share this news with you. "Four activists from Ukrainian feminist group Femen stripped off in St. Peter's Square on Sunday in a protest for gay rights just as Pope Benedict XVI was reciting his traditional weekly Angelus prayer." http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/topless-feminists-stage-vatican-gay-protest.aspx?pageID=238&nid=38944
This is another bold demonstration that we no longer hold to a true and sane notion of freedom. Where freedom becomes irreverent disrespect for sacred things, then freedom becomes something sick, insane and ultimately evil.
We are way into a moral dark age, where individuals in the name of their individual pride, in strife for self-gratification, for bodily pleasure, for dirty, pig-like, debased and debauched forms of love and lust and licentiousness, are even willing to come to a sacred place that is not even the center of their own religious cult (Ukranians are Christian Orthodox after all), to insult and humilliate those that do not share their moral decrepitude.
This is another act that proves that individuals must be guided in their freedom, and that freedom must be somehow guided by a superior intelligence, for when they are left to themselves, many human beings become ugly and savage animals, like this feminist group from somewhere outside Roman Christianity.
What has happened with the freedom Locke and J. S. Smith defended so ardently? These men where Christians that understood freedom to be a wonderful gift from God. The moment it turned against God, against the sacred, it ceased being freedom and became a work of the devil.
I cannot help but ask myself, is our civilization worth defending? Is this culture of freedom something we ought to protect?
After all, we are being challenged by the Muslim world in ways that are startling. But at times like this I cannot avoid raising the question if the Muslim world does not have the better side in this debate. They remain steadfast with God, and if they will create their form of freedom any time soon, it doesn't seem to depart from their respect and yield to God. If that would be the case, why would we, Western Christians, side with our own decrepit civilization? If freedom means protesting topless in front of the most holy place in all Western Christendom: is it something worth considering as a good?
Two core values of modernity are falling short of my highest expectations: democracy and freedom. Democracy, because it's the weapon of the mass of uncultivated against merit, and the modern understanding of freedom, because it's a debased and corrupt form of individuality. Both are willing to assault things that are not to be touched by human beings.
There is no legitimate right to disrespect sacred things. Anyone willing to do so is a rogue of Creation. I propose to call all these liberals rogues against Creation, like communists, atheists, and the family of infidels that turned their backs against God, and that now want to use the government to turn all of civilization against Heaven.
There is not right to send society down Hell. If you want to go to Hell, then do it on your own. Don't ask all of society to accompany you. Liberals are an army of evil harlots and incubus that want to see us all burned so that they can enjoy the pleasures of a few years of debauched life.
If this is civilization, I choose barbarism.
Suscribirse a:
Enviar comentarios (Atom)
4 comentarios:
Es cierto, vi la nota y lo primero que pensé es que la protesta y su forma eran una provocación bastante temeraria. Pero después pensé otra vez y consideré que en muchos países el Estado Vaticano, cuya cabeza es la misma que la de la Iglesia Católica Apostólica Romana, no está dispuesto a permitir que elijamos irnos al infierno o al cielo, base de la oportunidad de salvación para todo cristiano que se respete. En ese sentido, los regímenes liberales y el cristianismo comparten algo: la aceptación de que el pecado pertenece al ámbito de la vida privada y el delito al de la esfera pública. Los musulmanes no pueden aceptar esta sencilla idea por el papel que en su religión juega la predestinación, entre otros motivos.
¿Y cuál es el punto entonces? Bueno, que la Iglesia Católica, siempre que ha podido, ha buscado transformar los preceptos de elección cristiana en leyes civiles. Y precisamente hoy, en Uganda, han participado activamente en la promoción de la cárcel y pena de muerte contra los homosexuales. Las feministas de la plaza de San Pedro estaban usando simplemente un recurso político convencional.
Además, la misma Iglesia Católica fue la que autorizó la evangelización por medio de la espada de toda América, destruyendo cuanto lugar sagrado encontró a su paso. Y, más allá del señalado anacronismo, no tengo memoria de ningún Papa en la época contemporánea que haya pedido siquiera perdón por esos actos irreversibles de "fe".
Eso con lo que respecta al fondo. Con respecto a la estrategia puramente formal: Las emociones que asociadas al concepto de lo sagrado son bastante peligrosas y me parece que los primeros que deberían entender eso son los clérigos. Usar su posición "espiritual" (i.e. emocional) para impulsar cambios en lo público es una cobardía. Pero al mismo tiempo, dudo que esta acción vaya a generar un apoyo moral positivo hacia el movimiento lesbico-gay y en esa medida ser una estrategia política eficaz. Las pasiones nos llevan al debate público pero no deberían participar en él.
While I do not endorse or applaud the disrespectful way in which this protest was carried out (and neither does secular law: being naked in public is an offense, albeit a minor one), your post demonstrates how narrow someone's view can become when insisting on centering it on a particular religion and God, and the ultimate defense of protecting anything that has to do with them, insisting that everything stems from them, and that the rest of society has to bow down to that absolute truth.
The defense of gay rights or of any liberal agenda is not and will never be "in the name of individual pride, in strife for self-gratification, for bodily pleasure, for dirty, pig-like, debased and debauched forms of love and lust and licentiousness". By in large, we are not advocating for bacchic orgies and out-of-control promiscuity and licentiousness. Calling it that is just a reflection of how distorted your conception of homosexuality is. It should be obvious for anybody with a bit of sense that homosexual love, erotism or sex are not essentially different from their heterosexual counterparts: not in worth, not in sentiment, and certainly not in how clean or morally permissible they are. And so they should be judged by the same rules and allowed with the same caveats that society already imposes.
No, there is nothing sacred, and there should be nothing imposed as sacred in a secular, plural society. A plural society has no common God, no common religion. The only protection the Pope should have is that which he already has. A naked protest is as much a lack of respect against him than it would be to Obama or to any public figure, and it should be punished as such, and nothing more.
If you want to live in a society with Christian laws, form a new one with only Christians, see how that works out.
"Rogue of Creation"... I like that title. Now, if you don't mind, this rogue of creation infidel pagan agnostic (I mean... atheist) incubus goes back to his completely debauched, immoral and dirty life to ensure all are perverted so that we all burn in hell for eternity.
Though a Catholic, I don’t know if I can share your kind of anger at what happened at St. Peter’s Square. But for what is worth, I certainly agree with you about the direction mainstream progressive thought has been taking for quite some time now. It is unimaginatively iconoclast, unashamedly propagandist and wants everything to change right now, because-I-say-so.
I do believe that we will end up accepting everything short of violent acts. It will make life much more savoury for the few and relatively worst for the most, but at least we will all be more equally happy/unhappy. Quantitatively, society will be less happy because a majority of individuals will not necessary be able to recognise themselves or their loved ones in the greater group any longer, affecting their sense of security (as they become less able to predict what to expect from their fellow human being) and (importantly from an economic perspective) their willingness to cooperate. The disadvantaged few will be happier because their previously scorned-upon drives will not collide any longer against accepted behaviour, their happiness will not be dependent on a “greater good”. Is this trade-off desirable? If we come from a place of empathy, definitely yes... one could even say it’s the Christian thing to do.
I would only argue that breaking all expectation of moral homogeneity should go hand in hand with breaking all propaganda about what is supposed to be a desirable life, wherever it may come from. Running half marathons, “pursuing the job you love”, living in flashy metropolises, being fashionably progressive, seeking and loving plurality as a value per se are as much mirages of the good life as traditional moral conventions are. Let’s really stop the noise and let each one decide for herself what is beautiful and what is not, keeping only the golden rule: don’t mess with your fellow man’s liberty. Let’s do the experiment right and really let human nature decide human tendencies, let’s not be social experiments created by a self-righteous intelligentsia trying to overthrow old idols in order to implant new ones.
Publicar un comentario