São Tomás de Aquino, o "Doutor Angélico", certa vez, diante de um crucifixo em Nápoles, ouviu estas palavras de Jesus:
“Bem tem você escrito sobre Mim, Tomás, o que devo te dar em recompensa?"
São Tomás respondeu: “Nada senão a Ti mesmo, meu Senhor". Em latim, São Tomás disse: Nil, Nisi Te, Domine. Em inglês: Naught save Thyself, O Lord.
Abaixo, vai um vídeo muito informativo e brilhantemente conduzido que compara a matança de judeus por Hitler, porque, nas palavras dele, "os judeus não eram humanos", com a matança de crianças no feto materno, porque alguns "consideram que elas também não são humanas".
No começo, pensei que o vídeo era acerca da ignorância sobre quem foi Adolf Hitler, mas por volta de 15 minutos do filme se faz uma pergunta relacionando uma circunstância do nazismo (enterro de vivos) com o aborto.
Não vou traduzir o vídeo porque tem mais de 30 minutos (estipulei que meu limite de tempo para traduzir vídeo para o blog é de 10 minutos), mas vou descrever a estrutura do filme.
1) Inicia-se o filme perguntando às pessoas quem foi Adolf Hitler. É incrível como se encontra quem não tenha a mínima idéia;
2) Mostra-se que há pessoas que negam o holocausto e odeiam Jesus Cristo, porque ele era judeu;
3) Mostra-se que Hitler odiava o cristianismo, porque supostamente tinha sido fabricado por judeus, e que ele tentou reescrever a Bíblia tirando o judaísmo de Cristo;
4) Em seguida, exibe-se um método de matar do nazismo: depois de receberem um tiro as pessoas eram jogadas numa vala e enterradas ainda vivas. Há uma descrição assustadora de um sobrevivente.
5) Depois pergunta-se às pessoas se elas usariam a escavadeira para enterrar as pessoas vivas se fossem obrigadas pelos soldados nazistas. Algumas dizem que sim, pois queriam salvar suas vidas, outras dizem que preferiam morrer;
6) Passa-se então a relacionar o uso da escavadeira com o aborto, pois é também o enterro de vivos. É muito revelador ver as respostas das pessoas. Há até quem se converta passe a ser contra o aborto.
O jornalista James Delingpole, autor de Watermelons - The Green Movement´s True Colors (Melancias: As Verdadeiras Cores do Movimento Ambientalista) e um dos maiores críticos da idéia de mudança climática antropogênica (provocada pelo homem), deu um entrevista para a Reason TV sobre o que significa o movimento ambientalista.
A entrevista segue abaixo com a minha tradução (em azul), mas para entendê-la é preciso três informações:
1) O seriado cômico South Park fez uma sátira com Al Gore, certa vez, na qual Al Gore aparece na séria alertando contra um monstro chamado ManBearPig (HomemUrsoPorco), que seria, nas palavras de Al Gore na comédia: "Metade homem, metade urso e metade porco". Todo mundo aparece assutado com o monstro, mas na verdade seria apenas Al Gore se disfarçando de monstro. Vocês podem assistir a algumas partes do episódio no South Park no youtube, cliquem aqui.
2) Certa vez, um grupo ambienatlista inglês chamado No Pressure (Sem Pressão) fez uma campanha na qual quem não acreditava na mudança climática era morto. Já falei disso aqui no blog, cliquem aqui.
3) Climategate foi uma expressão criada pelo próprio Delingpole que ficou famosa no mundo. Descreve a descoberta de que os cientistas da Universiade East Anglia, que fornecem os dados de aquecimento para a ONU, estavam escondendo dados e impedindo que cientistas dissidentes publicassem em jornais acadêmicos.
Agora, vejam o vídeo e a tradução abaixo:
Quando Al Gore apareceu no South Park tentando assustar crianças usando a perigosa criatura chamada ManBearPig, dizendo que a vida das pessoas estava em perigo por causa do ManBearPig a não ser que as pessoas fizessem alguma coisa, o South Park entendeu que a idéia de aquecimento global antropogênico é apenas um truque fantástico.
Tudo que tive que fazer foi olhar a internet um dia e ler um dos grandes websites chamado Watts Up With That e entender que a idéia de aquecimento global estava se quebrando.
Climategate foi o vazamento de emails da Universidade de East Anglia, o que este vazamento mostrou foi que os cientistas que estavam no coração do IPCC (orgão da ONU para mudança climática) estavam suprimindo a posição de cientistas dissidentes, eles estavam realmente se comportando como bad boys. Então, se pode pensar: espera aí, esses caras estão dizendo que a ciência está clara com relação ao aquecimento global, mas como posso confiar neles, se eles estão suprimindo as opiniões dissidentes?
Coloquei esta história no meu blog e no final da semana o termo Climategate tinha 30 milhões de google hits.
Climategate foi ao mesmo tempo um divisor de águas e também não mudou nada. Permita-me explicar. Climategate mostrou estes cientistas sendo perversos. Antes se acreditava que isso (a supressão de dissidentes) não era feita deliberadamente, descobriu-se que sim com o Climategate. Esta foi a primeira parte e pensamos: "espera aí, a farsa acabou, eles não se atreverão a seguir com isso".
Mas o que realmente aconteceu é que ocorreram três ou quatro "investigações oficiais", "investigações independentes", e vejam o que eles acharam: inocentaram os cientistas. Nada para se ver aqui.
Não é ciência, é política. De acordo com a teoria, se há aumento de dióxido de carbono, a temperatura aumenta, há o aquecimento global. Mas o volume de dióxido de carbono tem aumentado e não há aquecimento acima da média desde 1998. Então, certamente é bem mais complicado do que esses caras estão falando.
Acho que posso falar por todos que estão do meu lado do argumento: nós não vamos engolir mentiras, tudo que queremos é um debate aberto, para que a verdade apareça. Se os verdadeiros dados, e não os dados ajustados, mostrarem que o mundo está ficando perigosamente quente e isto é conectado com o dióxido de carbono, então vamos lidar com o problema. O que não aceitamos são as mentiras, as acusações e os argumentações de que é errado simplesmente questionar.
A indústria do aquecimento global é do tamanho de trilhões. Costuma-se dizer que o experimento científico mais caro da história foi o Projeto Manhattan (que construiu a bomba nulear), a indústria do aquecimento global é calculada em 5 vezes mais do que o Projeto Manhattan, em termos reais. Você pode comprar muitos interesses com essa grana.
Eu acho que muitas pessoas quando assistiram ao vídeo do No Pressure imaginou que se tratava de um vídeo de céticos do aquecimento global para mostrar os ambientalistas extremistas, mas não isso, era realmente uma campanha dos ambientalistas.
Aí começa o vídeo do No Pressure no qual a professora pede que os alunos reduzam as emissões em 10%. Quando duas crianças discordam, elas são mortas ao se apertar um botão.
Imagine se as crianças fossem mortas por serem gays ou muçulmanas, seria um gritaria incomensurável. Olhem essa equipe que fez essa campanha, usando um importante técnico de futebol e uma atriz do X Files. Essas pessoas que estavam envolvidas no projeto, nenhuma delas em nenhum momento pensou: "espera aí, nós estamos sugerindo que os céticos do aquecimento global deveriam ser executados?" Espero que essas pessoas, depois disso, tenham aberto seus olhos.
Eu chamei o movimento verde de melancia porque eles são verdes por fora, mas vermelhos por dentro. Quando o muro de Berlim caiu os comunistas perderam o argumento econômico, eles precisavam de outro ponto. O aquecimento global se tornou o porto mais próximo do comunismo. Eles poderiam alcançar muitos dos objetivos anteriores, sob o disfarce ambiental. O movimento verde é muito mais do que ambiente, é sobre tomar o poder. Podemos chamar de comunismo ou fascismo pois é a mesma coisa, é sobre controle.
Para aqueles que dizem que este meu argumento parece teoria conspiratória, há uma simples resposta: vá e leia o que a ONU diz, vá e leia o que pessoas como Maurice Strong diz, vá leia o que os heróis do movimento verde dizem. Eles falam sobre a necessidade de limitar a população, de controlar a população, de limitar o crescimento econômico, de "preservar" recursos escassos para gerações futuras. Em resumo, racionamento.
Eu não olho a população mundial e digo, isto é ruim e deve ser erradicado, nem digo como falou um documentro da ONU chamado Limitando o Crescimento que o homem é um câncer. O homem não é um câncer, de forma geral nós estamos OK e fazemos bem ao planeta. Quando o crescimento econômico acontece, nós temos mais dinheiro para limpar o meio ambiente, os rios, tornar a área rural mais bonita, fazer a terra gerar mais alimentos para mais pessoas. O que há de ruim com isso?
Dirigido por Emilio Estevez, que também faz o papel de Daniel, e tendo como ator principal Martin Sheen, pai de Emilio Estevez na vida real e também no filme, foi lançado The Way (O Caminho). Parece bem interessante e ainda tem uma bonita música de uma das minhas bandas preferidas, Coldplay.
O filme conta a história de Tom, cujo filho morreu quando estava fazenda o caminho de Santiago de Compostela. Tom decidiu fazer o mesmo caminho levando consigo as cinzas do filho. Ele acaba encontrando várias pessoas no percurso que estavam fazendo o trajeto por diferentes razões, desde emagrecimento até religiosas.
Essa é boa, a al-Qaeda, por meio da revista "Inspire" que usa para propagar seu programa, disse que o presidente do Irã deveria parar de dizer que quem derrubou as torres gêmeas em Nova Iorque foram o próprio Estados Unidos. A al-Qaeda defende seu legado e diz que todas as evidências mostram que foi ela que fez o atentado. A al-Qaeda chamou de ridícula a teoria conspiratória de Ahmadinejad. A organização ainda diz que Ahmadinejad está com inveja da al-Qaeda e querendo tomar o lugar da organização como o grande inimigo dos Estados Unidos. É o criminoso com orgulho.
O texto diz:
"Al Qaeda... succeeded in what Iran couldn't. Therefore it was necessary for the Iranians to discredit 9/11 and what better way to do so? Conspiracy theories." (Al Qaeda teve sucesso no que o Irã não teve. Portanto, foi necessário para os iranianos desacreditar o 11 de setembro e qual a melhor forma de fazer isso? Usando teorias conspiratórias.)
O aviso da al-Qaeda não serve só para Ahmadinejad, mas para inúmeros esquerdistas dentro e fora dos Estados Unidos que propagam essa estúpida teoria que nem sei se nasceu no Irã.
Bom, pelo menos uma vez pode-se dizer que a al-Qaeda faz um bom serviço aos Estados Unidos: pede que os estúpidos se calem.
O pastor cristão evangélico iraniano Youcef Nadarkhani (foto acima) converteu-se ao cristianismo quando tinha 19 anos, e amanhã pode ser enforcado por apostasia, isto é, abandono da fé islâmica. Ele está preso desde 12 de outubro de 2009. Nadarkhani tem 32 anos é pai de dois filhos pequenos e a esposa dele também ficou presa até outubro do ano passado.
O debate jurídico é saber se o pastor era muçulmano quando se converteu. Mesmo que ele não tenha sido, sendo os pais deles muçulmanos, isto pode não evitar o enforcamento, pois o Islã considera muçulmano os filhos de muçulmanos. Para se salvar, o pastor deverá também renunciar ao cristianismo.
O governo americano exige que o Irã cumpra as convenções internacionais de liberdade religiosa e organizações de direitos humanos reagem, mas mesmo assim pode ocorrer o enforcamento, que será o primeiro em 21 anos.
O regimento legal do Irã não prescreve enforcamento para apostasia mas diz que caso não exista prescição legal para algum crime, deve-se recorrer a lei islâmica (Sharia). E a Sharia determina morte para quem abandona a fé islâmica na sura 4:89 (tradução do árabe para o inglês de Hilali-Khan):
"But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them".(Mas se eles se voltam contra o Islã, agarre-os e mate-os em qualquer lugar que encontrá-los).
Alguns estudiosos usam a sura 2:256 do Corão para dizer que não há compulsão para que as pessoas se tornem muçulmanas:
There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. (Não há compulsão na religião. Verdadeiramente, o Caminho Correto se torna distinto do caminho errado)
Mas, a maioria dos especialistas em Islamismo argumentam pelo crime de apostasia.
Na Mauritânia, a pessoa tem três dias para refletir, se mantiver o abandono da fé islâmica, deve ser morta. Na Arábia Saudita, berço do Islã, também há condenação à morte por apostasia.
O advogado de Nadarkahni, Mohammad Ali Dadkhah, foi condenado ontem a 9 anos de prisão, acusado de propaganda contra o regime iraniano.
Rezemos pelos dois e para que a comunidade internacional se levante contra a afronta à liberdade religiosa.
O governo Obama chega até a definir o que é uma entidade religiosa para que se permita que estes métodos não sejam disponibilizados. Pela definição do Obama, Jesus Cristo não representa uma religião!! Pois uma entidade de saúde religiosa só atenderia aos seus membros, como a Igreja disponibiliza atendimento a todos sem discriminação de religião deve disponibilizar práticas abortivas.
No site, a USCCB pede que os católicos enviem mensagens ao Departamento de Saúde dos Estados Unidos e ao Congresso Americano exigindo revisão da medida que atenta contra os princípios católicos. O arcebispo do Kansas até proibiu que seja dado comunhão a Secretária de Saúde Kathleen Sebelius, ex-governadora do Kansas, até que ela repudie as medidas que atentam contra a vida humana. Ele se diz Católica.
Com a regulação, os hospitais, instituições de caridades, universidades e faculdades católicas serão forçadas a escolher entre abandonar suas assistências a saúde e toda a cobertura de saúde para seus trabalhadores ou assumírem um serviço que viola o princípio mais básico da Igreja (a defesa da vida humana).
A USCCB recebe críticas parecidas com aquelas recebidas pela CNBB, tende a ser liberal demais, mas a reação da entidade frente ao programa de saúde do Obama tem de ser louvada.
Muitos católicos votaram no Obama em 2008. Se eles seguem os preceitos da própria Igreja, deveriam agora estarem bem arrependidos.
De acordo com a sura 4:3 do Corão (tradução para o inglês do muçulmano Hilali-Khan):
"And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphangirls, then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (the captives and the slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice" . (E se você tem receio que não é capaz de fazer justiça às meninas órfãs, então case-se com outras mulheres à sua escolha, duas ou três ou quatro, mas se você tem receio que não é capaz de cuidar delas com justeza, então escolha apenas uma ou escravas que você de direito possui. Isto é o mais próximo da justiça).
Para entender a sura acima, cabe explicar que no mundo árabe pré-islâmico o homem assumia algumas órfãs e poderia casar com elas, além de poder obter escravas, que não gastava muito para sustentá-las.
Acontece que no Reino Unido os muçulmanos estão se casando dentro de mesquistas com várias esposas, tendo filhos com elas, mas colocando-as em casas diferentes, visitando-as em dias alternados. Daí, as mulheres pedem apoio governamental mostrando que elas são mulheres solteiras. O governo britânico, então, passa a sustentar a poligamia dos homens muçulmanos. Eles trazem inclusive mulheres do exterior. As estimativas chegam a 20 mil casos de poligamia no país.
As mulheres podem receber ajuda de moradia que pode alcançar 106 mil libras e benefício para crianças que custam 1 mil libra para o primeiro filho e 700 libras para os subsequentes. Quanto mais filhos, mais recursos públicos recebem.
O povo inglês está sustentando uma cultura diferente da deles. Mas o assunto é taboo no Reino Unido, uma vez que obrigará o país a exigir o comportamento monogâmico da religião cristã (Mateus 19: 3-9).
No Reino Unido, atualmente, a bigamia ou poligamia é punível com sete anos de prisão, e foi declarada ilegal em 1604, quando foi anunciado incluisve pena de morte para quem casasse com mais de uma esposa.
O governo deveria coibir os casos, exigindo a lei nacional da monogamia. Se eles querem morar no Reino Unido deveriam seguir as leis do país. Acho que o governo poderia usar o prórpio Corão, na medida em que os muçulmanos não estão sustentando as esposas e os filhos com seus próprios recursos, mas da sociedade, além disso muitos têm mais de quatro esposas. Mas não sei se o Corão ou Maomé (por meio das tradições escritas no Hadith) não aprovaria o comportamento deles, na medida em que o Islã pode considerar a ajuda do governo com uma taxa paga pelos infiéis e isto Maomé aprovou. Então, melhor exigir apenas o cumprimento da lei nacional e não entrar em questões teológicas.
É uma resposta belíssima, pois mostra que ela sabe qual é a definição da Igreja, Corpo de Cristo. Nós todos somos a Igreja e não apenas a cúria. Certa vez, tive a oportunidade de lembrar isso a um renomado professor que, em uma palestra ao comentar o comportammento errado de um padre, disse que este padre era a Igreja. Mas, nem o Papa é a Igreja. Todos os crentes fazem parte do Corpo de Cristo místico. Então, você e eu somos a Igreja e podemos melhorar muito para estar no caminho de Cristo.
O Papa lembrou qual é a definição da Igreja no seu discurso, além de mencionar qual deve ser o comportamento do sacerdote frente ao mundo:
"History has shown that, when Chruch becomes less wordly, her missionary witness shines more brightly". (A História tem mostrado que quando a Igreja se torna menos mundo, as testemunhas missionárias dela brilham mais intensamente)
Mas o Papa não mencionou na oportunidade outro grande exemplo. O discurso dele é ainda mais especial, pois estamos na semana de comemoração da santidade do Santo Padre Pio de Pietrecilna (foto acima) Ele foi muito perseguido por membros da Igreja Católica, mas aguentou calado até sua redenção pela própria Igreja.
Esta semana, eu li um excelente texto sobre a perseguição que sofreu Santo Padre Pio, no blog Te Deum Laudamus, que é escrito por uma freira carmelita, chamada Diane Korzeniewski. Cliquem no site e leiam o texto.
No discurso de ontem na ONU, Benjamin Netanyahu, primeiro-ministro de Israel, mostrou quais são os inimigos de Israel:
1) A própira ONU, que condena Israel, a única democracia do Oriente Médio, constantemente, e não aplaude nem quando há acordo de paz. Netanyahu chamou a ONU de teatro do absurdo;
2) O Islã militante insaciável, que quer um estado palestino mas não quer a paz;
3) O Irã que continua fornecendo armas para a Palestina e prometendo aniquilar Israel.
Seguramente, é um dos melhores discursos que já vi e é histórico. Qualquer um que deseje entender a ONU e o conflito Israel e Palestina deveria lê-lo. Abaixo vai o vídeo e a transcrição do discurso, no qual coloco negrito nas partes mais interessantes para mim.
...After all, it was here in 1975 that the age-old yearning of my people to restore our national life in our ancient biblical homeland — it was then that this was braided — branded, rather — shamefully, as racism. And it was here in 1980, right here, that the historic peace agreement between Israel and Egypt wasn’t praised; it was denounced! And it’s here year after year that Israel is unjustly singled out for condemnation. It’s singled out for condemnation more often than all the nations of the world combined. Twenty-one out of the 27 General Assembly resolutions condemn Israel — the one true democracy in the Middle East.
Well, this is an unfortunate part of the U.N. institution. It’s the — the theater of the absurd. It doesn’t only cast Israel as the villain; it often casts real villains in leading roles: Gadhafi’s Libya chaired the U.N. Commission on Human Rights; Saddam’s Iraq headed the U.N. Committee on Disarmament.
You might say: That’s the past. Well, here’s what’s happening now — right now, today. Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon now presides over the U.N. Security Council. This means, in effect, that a terror organization presides over the body entrusted with guaranteeing the world’s security.
You couldn’t make this thing up.
So here in the U.N., automatic majorities can decide anything. They can decide that the sun sets in the west or rises in the west. I think the first has already been pre-ordained. But they can also decide — they have decided that the Western Wall in Jerusalem, Judaism’s holiest place, is occupied Palestinian territory.
And yet even here in the General Assembly, the truth can sometimes break through. In 1984 when I was appointed Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, I visited the great rabbi of Lubavich. He said to me — and ladies and gentlemen, I don’t want any of you to be offended because from personal experience of serving here, I know there are many honorable men and women, many capable and decent people serving their nations here. But here’s what the rebbe said to me. He said to me, you’ll be serving in a house of many lies. And then he said, remember that even in the darkest place, the light of a single candle can be seen far and wide.
Today I hope that the light of truth will shine, if only for a few minutes, in a hall that for too long has been a place of darkness for my country. So as Israel’s prime minister, I didn’t come here to win applause. I came here to speak the truth. (Cheers, applause.) The truth is — the truth is that Israel wants peace. The truth is that I want peace. The truth is that in the Middle East at all times, but especially during these turbulent days, peace must be anchored in security. The truth is that we cannot achieve peace through U.N. resolutions, but only through direct negotiations between the parties. The truth is that so far the Palestinians have refused to negotiate. The truth is that Israel wants peace with a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians want a state without peace. And the truth is you shouldn’t let that happen.
Ladies and gentlemen, when I first came here 27 years ago, the world was divided between East and West. Since then the Cold War ended, great civilizations have risen from centuries of slumber, hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty, countless more are poised to follow, and the remarkable thing is that so far this monumental historic shift has largely occurred peacefully. Yet a malignancy is now growing between East and West that threatens the peace of all. It seeks not to liberate, but to enslave, not to build, but to destroy.
That malignancy is militant Islam. It cloaks itself in the mantle of a great faith, yet it murders Jews, Christians and Muslims alike with unforgiving impartiality. On September 11th it killed thousands of Americans, and it left the twin towers in smoldering ruins. Last night I laid a wreath on the 9/11 memorial. It was deeply moving. But as I was going there, one thing echoed in my mind: the outrageous words of the president of Iran on this podium yesterday. He implied that 9/11 was an American conspiracy. Some of you left this hall. All of you should have.
Since 9/11, militant Islamists slaughtered countless other innocents — in London and Madrid, in Baghdad and Mumbai, in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, in every part of Israel. I believe that the greatest danger facing our world is that this fanaticism will arm itself with nuclear weapons. And this is precisely what Iran is trying to do.
Can you imagine that man who ranted here yesterday — can you imagine him armed with nuclear weapons? The international community must stop Iran before it’s too late. If Iran is not stopped, we will all face the specter of nuclear terrorism, and the Arab Spring could soon become an Iranian winter. That would be a tragedy. Millions of Arabs have taken to the streets to replace tyranny with liberty, and no one would benefit more than Israel if those committed to freedom and peace would prevail.
This is my fervent hope. But as the prime minister of Israel, I cannot risk the future of the Jewish state on wishful thinking. Leaders must see reality as it is, not as it ought to be. We must do our best to shape the future, but we cannot wish away the dangers of the present.
And the world around Israel is definitely becoming more dangerous. Militant Islam has already taken over Lebanon and Gaza. It’s determined to tear apart the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Jordan. It’s poisoned many Arab minds against Jews and Israel, against America and the West. It opposes not the policies of Israel but the existence of Israel.
Now, some argue that the spread of militant Islam, especially in these turbulent times — if you want to slow it down, they argue, Israel must hurry to make concessions, to make territorial compromises. And this theory sounds simple. Basically it goes like this: Leave the territory, and peace will be advanced. The moderates will be strengthened, the radicals will be kept at bay. And don’t worry about the pesky details of how Israel will actually defend itself; international troops will do the job.
These people say to me constantly: Just make a sweeping offer, and everything will work out. You know, there’s only one problem with that theory. We’ve tried it and it hasn’t worked. In 2000 Israel made a sweeping peace offer that met virtually all of the Palestinian demands. Arafat rejected it. The Palestinians then launched a terror attack that claimed a thousand Israeli lives.
Prime Minister Olmert afterwards made an even more sweeping offer, in 2008. President Abbas didn’t even respond to it.
But Israel did more than just make sweeping offers. We actually left territory. We withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 and from every square inch of Gaza in 2005. That didn’t calm the Islamic storm, the militant Islamic storm that threatens us. It only brought the storm closer and make it stronger.
Hezbollah and Hamas fired thousands of rockets against our cities from the very territories we vacated. See, when Israel left Lebanon and Gaza, the moderates didn’t defeat the radicals, the moderates were devoured by the radicals. And I regret to say that international troops like UNIFIL in Lebanon and UBAM (ph) in Gaza didn’t stop the radicals from attacking Israel.
We left Gaza hoping for peace.
We didn’t freeze the settlements in Gaza, we uprooted them. We did exactly what the theory says: Get out, go back to the 1967 borders, dismantle the settlements.
And I don’t think people remember how far we went to achieve this. We uprooted thousands of people from their homes. We pulled children out of — out of their schools and their kindergartens. We bulldozed synagogues. We even — we even moved loved ones from their graves. And then, having done all that, we gave the keys of Gaza to President Abbas.
Now the theory says it should all work out, and President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority now could build a peaceful state in Gaza. You can remember that the entire world applauded. They applauded our withdrawal as an act of great statesmanship. It was a bold act of peace.
But ladies and gentlemen, we didn’t get peace. We got war. We got Iran, which through its proxy Hamas promptly kicked out the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority collapsed in a day — in one day.
President Abbas just said on this podium that the Palestinians are armed only with their hopes and dreams. Yeah, hopes, dreams and 10,000 missiles and Grad rockets supplied by Iran, not to mention the river of lethal weapons now flowing into Gaza from the Sinai, from Libya, and from elsewhere.
Thousands of missiles have already rained down on our cities. So you might understand that, given all this,Israelis rightly ask: What’s to prevent this from happening again in the West Bank? See, most of our major cities in the south of the country are within a few dozen kilometers from Gaza. But in the center of the country, opposite the West Bank, our cities are a few hundred meters or at most a few kilometers away from the edge of the West Bank.
So I want to ask you. Would any of you — would any of you bring danger so close to your cities, to your families? Would you act so recklessly with the lives of your citizens? Israel is prepared to have a Palestinian state in the West Bank, but we’re not prepared to have another Gaza there. And that’s why we need to have real security arrangements, which the Palestinians simply refuse to negotiate with us.
Israelis remember the bitter lessons of Gaza. Many of Israel’s critics ignore them. They irresponsibly advise Israel to go down this same perilous path again. Your read what these people say and it’s as if nothing happened — just repeating the same advice, the same formulas as though none of this happened.
And these critics continue to press Israel to make far-reaching concessions without first assuring Israel’s security. They praise those who unwittingly feed theinsatiable crocodile of militant Islam as bold statesmen. They cast as enemies of peace those of us who insist that we must first erect a sturdy barrier to keep the crocodile out, or at the very least jam an iron bar between its gaping jaws.
So in the face of the labels and the libels, Israel must heed better advice. Better a bad press than a good eulogy, and better still would be a fair press whose sense of history extends beyond breakfast, and which recognizes Israel’s legitimate security concerns.
I believe that in serious peace negotiations, these needs and concerns can be properly addressed, but they will not be addressed without negotiations. And the needs are many, because Israel is such a tiny country. Without Judea and Samaria, the West Bank, Israel is all of 9 miles wide.
I want to put it for you in perspective, because you’re all in the city. That’s about two-thirds the length of Manhattan. It’s the distance between Battery Park and Columbia University. And don’t forget that the people who live in Brooklyn and New Jersey are considerably nicer than some of Israel’s neighbors.
So how do you — how do you protect such a tiny country, surrounded by people sworn to its destruction and armed to the teeth by Iran? Obviously you can’t defend it from within that narrow space alone. Israel needs greater strategic depth, and that’s exactly why Security Council Resolution 242 didn’t require Israel to leave all the territories it captured in the Six-Day War. It talked about withdrawal from territories, to secure and defensible boundaries. And to defend itself, Israel must therefore maintain a long-term Israeli military presence in critical strategic areas in the West Bank.
I explained this to President Abbas. He answered that if a Palestinian state was to be a sovereign country, it could never accept such arrangements. Why not? America has had troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea for more than a half a century. Britain has had an airspace in Cyprus or rather an air base in Cyprus. France has forces in three independent African nations. None of these states claim that they’re not sovereign countries.
And there are many other vital security issues that also must be addressed. Take the issue of airspace. Again, Israel’s small dimensions create huge security problems. America can be crossed by jet airplane in six hours. To fly across Israel, it takes three minutes. So is Israel’s tiny airspace to be chopped in half and given to a Palestinian state not at peace with Israel?
Our major international airport is a few kilometers away from the West Bank. Without peace, will our planes become targets for antiaircraft missiles placed in the adjacent Palestinian state? And how will we stop the smuggling into the West Bank? It’s not merely the West Bank, it’s the West Bank mountains. It just dominates the coastal plain where most of Israel’s population sits below. How could we prevent the smuggling into these mountains of those missiles that could be fired on our cities?
I bring up these problems because they’re not theoretical problems. They’re very real. And for Israelis, they’re life-and- death matters. All these potential cracks in Israel’s security have to be sealed in a peace agreement before a Palestinian state is declared, not afterwards, because if you leave it afterwards, they won’t be sealed. And these problems will explode in our face and explode the peace.
The Palestinians should first make peace with Israel and then get their state. But I also want to tell you this. After such a peace agreement is signed, Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations. We will be the first. (Applause.)
And there’s one more thing. Hamas has been violating international law by holding our soldier Gilad Shalit captive for five years.
They haven’t given even one Red Cross visit. He’s held in a dungeon, in darkness, against all international norms. Gilad Shalit is the son of Aviva and Noam Shalit. He is the grandson of Zvi Shalit, who escaped the Holocaust by coming to the — in the 1930s as a boy to the land of Israel. Gilad Shalit is the son of every Israeli family. Every nation represented here should demand his immediate release. (Applause.) If you want to — if you want to pass a resolution about the Middle East today, that’s the resolution you should pass. (Applause.)
Ladies and gentlemen, last year in Israel in Bar-Ilan University, this year in the Knesset and in the U.S. Congress, I laid out my vision for peace in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state. Yes, the Jewish state. After all, this is the body that recognized the Jewish state 64 years ago. Now, don’t you think it’s about time that Palestinians did the same?
The Jewish state of Israel will always protect the rights of all its minorities, including the more than 1 million Arab citizens of Israel. I wish I could say the same thing about a future Palestinian state, for as Palestinian officials made clear the other day — in fact, I think they made it right here in New York — they said the Palestinian state won’t allow any Jews in it. They’ll be Jew-free — Judenrein. That’s ethnic cleansing. There are laws today in Ramallah that make the selling of land to Jews punishable by death. That’s racism. And you know which laws this evokes.
Israel has no intention whatsoever to change the democratic character of our state. We just don’t want the Palestinians to try to change the Jewish character of our state. (Applause.) We want to give up — we want them to give up the fantasy of flooding Israel with millions of Palestinians.
President Abbas just stood here, and he said that the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the settlements. Well, that’s odd. Our conflict has been raging for — was raging for nearly half a century before there was a single Israeli settlement in the West Bank. So if what President Abbas is saying was true, then the — I guess that the settlements he’s talking about are Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa, Be’er Sheva. Maybe that’s what he meant the other day when he said that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for 63 years. He didn’t say from 1967; he said from 1948. I hope somebody will bother to ask him this question because it illustrates a simple truth: The core of the conflict is not the settlements. The settlements are a result of the conflict. (Applause.)
The settlements have to be — it’s an issue that has to be addressed and resolved in the course of negotiations. But the core of the conflict has always been and unfortunately remains the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize a Jewish state in any border.
I think it’s time that the Palestinian leadership recognizes what every serious international leader has recognized, from Lord Balfour and Lloyd George in 1917, to President Truman in 1948, to President Obama just two days ago right here: Israel is the Jewish state. (Applause.)
President Abbas, stop walking around this issue. Recognize the Jewish state, and make peace with us. In such a genuine peace, Israel is prepared to make painful compromises. We believe that the Palestinians should be neither the citizens of Israel nor its subjects. They should live in a free state of their own. But they should be ready, like us, for compromise. And we will know that they’re ready for compromise and for peace when they start taking Israel’s security requirements seriously and when they stop denying our historical connection to our ancient homeland.
I often hear them accuse Israel of Judaizing Jerusalem. That’s like accusing America of Americanizing Washington, or the British of Anglicizing London. You know why we’re called “Jews”? Because we come from Judea.
In my office in Jerusalem, there’s a — there’s an ancient seal. It’s a signet ring of a Jewish official from the time of the Bible. The seal was found right next to the Western Wall, and it dates back 2,700 years, to the time of King Hezekiah. Now, there’s a name of the Jewish official inscribed on the ring in Hebrew. His name was Netanyahu. That’s my last name. My first name, Benjamin, dates back a thousand years earlier to Benjamin — Binyamin — the son of Jacob, who was also known as Israel. Jacob and his 12 sons roamed these same hills of Judea and Sumeria 4,000 years ago, and there’s been a continuous Jewish presence in the land ever since.
And for those Jews who were exiled from our land, they never stopped dreaming of coming back: Jews in Spain, on the eve of their expulsion; Jews in the Ukraine, fleeing the pogroms; Jews fighting the Warsaw Ghetto, as the Nazis were circling around it. They never stopped praying, they never stopped yearning. They whispered: Next year in Jerusalem. Next year in the promised land. (Applause.)
As the prime minister of Israel, I speak for a hundred generations of Jews who were dispersed throughout the lands, who suffered every evil under the Sun, but who never gave up hope of restoring their national life in the one and only Jewish state.
Ladies and gentlemen, I continue to hope that President Abbas will be my partner in peace. I’ve worked hard to advance that peace. The day I came into office, I called for direct negotiations without preconditions. President Abbas didn’t respond. I outlined a vision of peace of two states for two peoples. He still didn’t respond. I removed hundreds of roadblocks and checkpoints, to ease freedom of movement in the Palestinian areas; this facilitated a fantastic growth in the Palestinian economy. But again — no response. I took the unprecedented step of freezing new buildings in the settlements for 10 months. No prime minister did that before, ever.(Scattered applause.) Once again — you applaud, but there was no response. No response.
In the last few weeks, American officials have put forward ideas to restart peace talks. There were things in those ideas about borders that I didn’t like. There were things there about the Jewish state that I’m sure the Palestinians didn’t like.
But with all my reservations, I was willing to move forward on these American ideas.
President Abbas, why don’t you join me? We have to stop negotiating about the negotiations. Let’s just get on with it. Let’s negotiate peace. (Applause.)
I spent years defending Israel on the battlefield. I spent decades defending Israel in the court of public opinion. President Abbas, you’ve dedicated your life to advancing the Palestinian cause. Must this conflict continue for generations, or will we enable our children and our grandchildren to speak in years ahead of how we found a way to end it? That’s what we should aim for, and that’s what I believe we can achieve.
In two and a half years, we met in Jerusalem only once, even though my door has always been open to you. If you wish, I’ll come to Ramallah. Actually, I have a better suggestion. We’ve both just flown thousands of miles to New York. Now we’re in the same city. We’re in the same building. So let’s meet here today in the United Nations. (Applause.) Who’s there to stop us? What is there to stop us? If we genuinely want peace, what is there to stop us from meeting today and beginning peace negotiations?
And I suggest we talk openly and honestly. Let’s listen to one another. Let’s do as we say in the Middle East: Let’s talk “doogli” (ph). That means straightforward. I’ll tell you my needs and concerns. You’ll tell me yours. And with God’s help, we’ll find the common ground of peace. (Applause.)
There’s an old Arab saying that you cannot applaud with one hand. Well, the same is true of peace. I cannot make peace alone. I cannot make peace without you. President Abbas, I extend my hand — the hand of Israel — in peace. I hope that you will grasp that hand. We are both the sons of Abraham. My people call him Avraham. Your people call him Ibrahim. We share the same patriarch. We dwell in the same land. Our destinies are intertwined. Let us realize the vision of Isaiah — (speaks in Hebrew) — “The people who walk in darkness will see a great light.” Let that light be the light of peace. (Applause.)
Caros, ontem ocorreu mais um debate entre aqueles que querem ser o candidato da oposição contra Obama em 2012, no partido Republicano. Desta vez, o debate foi patrocinado pela Fox News e pelo Google. Eram 9 candidatos no palco (foto acima):
Rick Perry (que está na frente das pesquisas, governador do Texas);
Mitt Romeny (em segundo lugar nas pesquisas, ex-governador de Massachusetts);
Michelle Bachman (deputada);
Rick Santorum (ex-senador);
Ron Paul (deputado)
Herman Cain ( ex-diretor do Banco Central);
Jon Huntsman (ex-governador de Utah);
Gary Johnson (ex-governador do Novo México);
Newt Gingrich (ex-presidente da Câmara, speaker).
Em geral, acho que o grande derrotado da noite foi Rick Perry. Ele é muito inteligente, tem respostas sempre ótimas, defende o cristianismo com amor e perseverança, tem um ótimo histórico como governador, especialmente na questão de proporcionar um ambiente de geração de empregos. Destas qualidades, as únicas que realmente diferenciam Perry dos outros é seu histórico como governador, pois todos os candidatos são muito inteligentes e defendem o cristianismo, com exceção de Ron Paul, que não defende religião ou ética nenhuma.
Mas Perry tem duas fragilidades especiais. Ele estabeleceu a obrigação de uma vacina contra HPV (isto não é coisa que um conservador faça) e proporcionou subsídio para educação de filhos de imigrantes ilegais, o que serve como atração para que mais gente entre ilegalmente nos Estados Unidos. Ele responde bem à primeira questão, diz que errou, mas foi destruído na segunda. Especialmente por Rick Santorum.
Romney e Bachman disseram que o subsídio serve de imã para imigrantes ilegais. Perry respondeu que eles não tinham coração. Santorum então disse que concorda em prover educação para filhos de imigrantes ilegais, mas não com o subsídio, pois isso traria um benefício desproporcional a quem é legal. Foi uma análise inteligente e vencedora de Santorum.
Perry também pareceu despreparado no debate com o seu principal opositor, Mitt Romney. Ele deveria se preparar mais. Entenda-se que Romney está querendo ser presidente há bastante tempo, está treinado e tem muito dinheiro. Perry entrou agora na disputa, não tem dois meses.
Os outros candidatos mostraram estarem bem preparados e deram sempre ótimas respostas, com exceção de Ron Paul e Gary Johnson, que são libertários e sempre falam no sentido de eliminar quase completamente as funções do governo. Eles são muito frágeis especialmente nas questões de segurança, pois querem deixar os aliados americanos cuidarem de si mesmos e retirar todas as tropas americanas do exterior. Isto abriria as portas do inferno.
Se eu fosse eleitor americano, votaria em Rick Santorum. Ele está sempre muito bem preparado para os debates e as respostas que dá são sempre profundas, inteligentes e na defesa dos valores cristãos. Isto não é apenas eu que diz, qualquer um que faz uma análise sobre o candidatos reconhece o preparo de Santorum, como a própria Fox News, que disse:
Among those second-tier candidates, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain all had good nights--especially Santorum who got a lot of airtime and has been consistently strong in the debates. (Entre os candidatos do segundo time, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Hermain Cain todos tiveram uma boa noite, especialmente Santorum que conseguiu bastante tempo e tem sido muito consistente nos debates).
Qual são então os problemas de Rick Santorum? Dois: 1) Não tem dinheiro; 2) Ele é realmente católico, isto pode ser ainda problemático nos Estados Unidos (o país só teve um católico como presidente, John Kennedy).
O Papa Bento XVI fez um excelente discurso hoje no Parlamento Alemão sobre o que é o Direito e qual deve ser a função de um político. Sensacional. O discurso tem foco na figura de Salomão e na situação cultural européia.
Para mostrar a complexidade do discurso também podemos dar-lhe o título de "Relação entre o Ser e o Dever". Abaixo vai a transcrição do discurso do Papa (em inglês, não tive tempo de traduzir ainda) com as partes que gostei em negrito.
Mr President of the Bundestag,
Madam Chancellor,
Mr President of the Bundesrat,
Ladies and Gentlemen Members of the House,
It is an honour and a joy for me to speak before this distinguished house, before the Parliament of my native Germany, that meets here as a democratically elected representation of the people, in order to work for the good of the Federal Republic of Germany. I should like to thank the President of the Bundestag both for his invitation to deliver this address and for the kind words of greeting and appreciation with which he has welcomed me. At this moment I turn to you, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, not least as your fellow-countryman who for all his life has been conscious of close links to his origins, and has followed the affairs of his native Germany with keen interest. But the invitation to give this address was extended to me as Pope, as the Bishop of Rome, who bears the highest responsibility for Catholic Christianity. In issuing this invitation you are acknowledging the role that the Holy See plays as a partner within the community of peoples and states. Setting out from this international responsibility that I hold, I should like to propose to you some thoughts on the foundations of a free state of law.
Allow me to begin my reflections on the foundations of law [Recht] with a brief story from sacred Scripture. In the First Book of the Kings, it is recounted that God invited the young King Solomon, on his accession to the throne, to make a request. What will the young ruler ask for at this important moment? Success – wealth – long life – destruction of his enemies? He chooses none of these things. Instead, he asks for a listening heart so that he may govern God’s people, and discern between good and evil (cf. 1 Kg 3:9). Through this story, the Bible wants to tell us what should ultimately matter for a politician. His fundamental criterion and the motivation for his work as a politician must not be success, and certainly not material gain.Politics must be a striving for justice, and hence it has to establish the fundamental preconditions for peace. Naturally a politician will seek success, as this is what opens up for him the possibility of effective political action. Yet success is subordinated to the criterion of justice, to the will to do what is right, and to the understanding of what is right. Success can also be seductive and thus can open up the path towards the falsification of what is right, towards the destruction of justice. "Without justice – what else is the State but a great band of robbers?", as Saint Augustine once said1. We Germans know from our own experience that these words are no empty spectre. We have seen how power became divorced from right, how power opposed right and crushed it, so that the State became an instrument for destroying right – a highly organized band of robbers, capable of threatening the whole world and driving it to the edge of the abyss. To serve right and to fight against the dominion of wrong is and remains the fundamental task of the politician. At a moment in history when man has acquired previously inconceivable power, this task takes on a particular urgency. Man can destroy the world. He can manipulate himself. He can, so to speak, make human beings and he can deny them their humanity. How do we recognize what is right? How can we discern between good and evil, between what is truly right and what may appear right? Even now, Solomon’s request remains the decisive issue facing politicians and politics today.
For most of the matters that need to be regulated by law, the support of the majority can serve as a sufficient criterion. Yet it is evident that for the fundamental issues of law, in which the dignity of man and of humanity is at stake, the majority principle is not enough: everyone in a position of responsibility must personally seek out the criteria to be followed when framing laws. In the third century, the great theologian Origen provided the following explanation for the resistance of Christians to certain legal systems: "Suppose that a man were living among the Scythians, whose laws are contrary to the divine law, and was compelled to live among them ... such a man for the sake of the true law, though illegal among the Scythians, would rightly form associations with like-minded people contrary to the laws of the Scythians." 2
This conviction was what motivated resistance movements to act against the Nazi regime and other totalitarian regimes, thereby doing a great service to justice and to humanity as a whole. For these people, it was indisputably evident that the law in force was actually unlawful. Yet when it comes to the decisions of a democratic politician, the question of what now corresponds to the law of truth, what is actually right and may be enacted as law, is less obvious. In terms of the underlying anthropological issues, what is right and may be given the force of law is in no way simply self-evident today. The question of how to recognize what is truly right and thus to serve justice when framing laws has never been simple, and today in view of the vast extent of our knowledge and our capacity, it has become still harder.
How do we recognize what is right? In history, systems of law have almost always been based on religion: decisions regarding what was to be lawful among men were taken with reference to the divinity. Unlike other great religions, Christianity has never proposed a revealed body of law to the State and to society, that is to say a juridical order derived from revelation.Instead, it has pointed to nature and reason as the true sources of law – and to the harmony of objective and subjective reason, which naturally presupposes that both spheres are rooted in the creative reason of God. Christian theologians thereby aligned themselves with a philosophical and juridical movement that began to take shape in the second century B.C. In the first half of that century,the social natural law developed by the Stoic philosophers came into contact with leading teachers of Roman Law.3 Through this encounter, the juridical culture of the West was born, which was and is of key significance for the juridical culture of mankind.This pre-Christian marriage between law and philosophy opened up the path that led via the Christian Middle Ages and the juridical developments of the Age of Enlightenment all the way to the Declaration of Human Rights and to our German Basic Law of 1949, with which our nation committed itself to "inviolable and inalienable human rights as the foundation of every human community, and of peace and justice in the world".
For the development of law and for the development of humanity, it was highly significant that Christian theologians aligned themselves against the religious law associated with polytheism and on the side of philosophy, and that they acknowledged reason and nature in their interrelation as the universally valid source of law. This step had already been taken by Saint Paul in the Letter to the Romans, when he said: "When Gentiles who have not the Law [the Torah of Israel] do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves ... they show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness ..." (Rom 2:14f.). Here we see the two fundamental concepts of nature and conscience, where conscience is nothing other than Solomon’s listening heart, reason that is open to the language of being. If this seemed to offer a clear explanation of the foundations of legislation up to the time of the Enlightenment, up to the time of the Declaration on Human Rights after the Second World War and the framing of our Basic Law, there has been a dramatic shift in the situation in the last half-century. The idea of natural law is today viewed as a specifically Catholic doctrine, not worth bringing into the discussion in a non-Catholic environment, so that one feels almost ashamed even to mention the term. Let me outline briefly how this situation arose. Fundamentally it is because of the idea that an unbridgeable gulf exists between "is" and "ought". An "ought" can never follow from an "is", because the two are situated on completely different planes. The reason for this is that in the meantime, the positivist understanding of nature and reason has come to be almost universally accepted. If nature – in the words of Hans Kelsen – is viewed as "an aggregate of objective data linked together in terms of cause and effect", then indeed no ethical indication of any kind can be derived from it.4 A positivist conception of nature as purely functional, in the way that the natural sciences explain it, is incapable of producing any bridge to ethics and law, but once again yields only functional answers. The same also applies to reason, according to the positivist understanding that is widely held to be the only genuinely scientific one. Anything that is not verifiable or falsifiable, according to this understanding, does not belong to the realm of reason strictly understood. Hence ethics and religion must be assigned to the subjective field, and they remain extraneous to the realm of reason in the strict sense of the word. Where positivist reason dominates the field to the exclusion of all else – and that is broadly the case in our public mindset – then the classical sources of knowledge for ethics and law are excluded. This is a dramatic situation which affects everyone, and on which a public debate is necessary. Indeed, an essential goal of this address is to issue an urgent invitation to launch one.
The positivist approach to nature and reason, the positivist world view in general, is a most important dimension of human knowledge and capacity that we may in no way dispense with. But in and of itself it is not a sufficient culture corresponding to the full breadth of the human condition. Where positivist reason considers itself the only sufficient culture and banishes all other cultural realities to the status of subcultures, it diminishes man, indeed it threatens his humanity. I say this with Europe specifically in mind, where there are concerted efforts to recognize only positivism as a common culture and a common basis for law-making, so that all the other insights and values of our culture are reduced to the level of subculture, with the result that Europe vis-à-vis other world cultures is left in a state of culturelessness and at the same time extremist and radical movements emerge to fill the vacuum. In its self-proclaimed exclusivity, the positivist reason which recognizes nothing beyond mere functionality resembles a concrete bunker with no windows, in which we ourselves provide lighting and atmospheric conditions, being no longer willing to obtain either from God’s wide world. And yet we cannot hide from ourselves the fact that even in this artificial world, we are still covertly drawing upon God’s raw materials, which we refashion into our own products. The windows must be flung open again, we must see the wide world, the sky and the earth once more and learn to make proper use of all this.
But how are we to do this? How do we find our way out into the wide world, into the big picture? How can reason rediscover its true greatness, without being sidetracked into irrationality? How can nature reassert itself in its true depth, with all its demands, with all its directives? I would like to recall one of the developments in recent political history, hoping that I will neither be misunderstood, nor provoke too many one-sided polemics. I would say that the emergence of the ecological movement in German politics since the 1970s, while it has not exactly flung open the windows, nevertheless was and continues to be a cry for fresh air which must not be ignored or pushed aside, just because too much of it is seen to be irrational. Young people had come to realize that something is wrong in our relationship with nature, that matter is not just raw material for us to shape at will, but that the earth has a dignity of its own and that we must follow its directives. In saying this, I am clearly not promoting any particular political party – nothing could be further from my mind. If something is wrong in our relationship with reality, then we must all reflect seriously on the whole situation and we are all prompted to question the very foundations of our culture. Allow me to dwell a little longer on this point. The importance of ecology is no longer disputed. We must listen to the language of nature and we must answer accordingly. Yet I would like to underline a further point that is still largely disregarded, today as in the past: there is also an ecology of man. Man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will. Man is not merely self-creating freedom. Man does not create himself. He is intellect and will, but he is also nature, and his will is rightly ordered if he listens to his nature, respects it and accepts himself for who he is, as one who did not create himself. In this way, and in no other, is true human freedom fulfilled.
Let us come back to the fundamental concepts of nature and reason, from which we set out. The great proponent of legal positivism, Kelsen, at the age of 84 – in 1965 – abandoned the dualism of "is" and "ought". He had said that norms can only come from the will.Nature therefore could only contain norms if a will had put them there. But this would presuppose a Creator God, whose will had entered into nature. "Any attempt to discuss the truth of this belief is utterly futile", he observed.5 Is it really? – I find myself asking. Is it really pointless to wonder whether the objective reason that manifests itself in nature does not presuppose a creative reason, a Creator Spiritus?
At this point Europe’s cultural heritage ought to come to our assistance. The conviction that there is a Creator God is what gave rise to the idea of human rights, the idea of the equality of all people before the law, the recognition of the inviolability of human dignity in every single person and the awareness of people’s responsibility for their actions. Our cultural memory is shaped by these rational insights. To ignore it or dismiss it as a thing of the past would be to dismember our culture totally and to rob it of its completeness. The culture of Europe arose from the encounter between Jerusalem, Athens and Rome – from the encounter between Israel’s monotheism, the philosophical reason of the Greeks and Roman law. This three-way encounter has shaped the inner identity of Europe. In the awareness of man’s responsibility before God and in the acknowledgment of the inviolable dignity of every single human person, it has established criteria of law: it is these criteria that we are called to defend at this moment in our history.
As he assumed the mantle of office, the young King Solomon was invited to make a request. How would it be if we, the law-makers of today, were invited to make a request? What would we ask for? I think that, even today, there is ultimately nothing else we could wish for but a listening heart – the capacity to discern between good and evil, and thus to establish true law, to serve justice and peace. Thank you for your attention!
Caros, eu ia comentar o impacto do assassinato do ex-presidente do Afeganistão Burhanuddin Rabbani por um terrorista que estava usando um turbante em que escondia uma bomba e matou Rabbani enquanto o abraçava. Mas certas coisas me provocam ainda mais repugnância. Além disso, quem quiser ler sobre Rabbani, está em todos os jornais, enquanto o que vai abaixo saiu em pouquíssimos jornais.
O site da BBC diz que uma rádio da Somália dominada pelo grupo terrorista muçulmano Al-Shabaab (foto acima) fez um concurso para as crianças no qual deseja ver quem sabe recitar mais o Corão. Para a criança que ganhar o primeiro lugar, o prêmio é um rifle AK-47 e 700 dólares. Para a que ficar em segundo lugar, o mesmo rifle e 500 dólares e para a terceira colocada, duas granadas e 400 dólares. Quatro crianças, entre 10 e 17 anos representando cada distrito na competitção foram escolhidas.
O líder do Al-Shabaab, Mukhtar Robow, disse:
"Youths should use one hand for education and the other for a gun to defend Islam," (Crianças deveriam usar uma mão para se educar e outra para segurar uma arma para defender o Islã)
A BBC diz que este o terceiro ano da competição. E antes teve como prêmio até uma arma que lança granadas.
O que pode ser pior do que uma religião que ensina a morte para crianças?
Caros, a agência de TV Rome Reports está lançando um documentário sobre os casos de pedofilia na Igreja e como o Vaticano tratou do assunto. O documentário se chama Bad Apples - Dealing with Sex Abuse in the Church (Maçãs Podres - Tratando dos Casos de Abusos Sexuais na Igreja). Recomendo a compra do documentário. Abaixo vai o trailler.
Como diz o site do documentário, o Papa Bento XVI falou sobre os casos de abusos sexuais provocados por padres várias vezes e sempre lembrou que:
“The greatest persecution of the Church does not come from external enemies, but is born of sin within the Church. Thus the Church has a profound need to relearn penance, purification, forgiveness and justice.” (A maior perseguição à Igreja não vem dos inimigos externos, mas nasce do pecado dentro da própria Igreja. Assim a Igreja tem uma necessidade profunda de reaprender a fazer penitência, a se purificar, a perdoar e fazer justiça).
