Politics and Religion

„The ever-growing expansion of spirituality, the so-called “the free exercise of religion” and the many signs that religion is still politically relevant have made a sociologist like J. Casanova courageously write that “an attempt to establish a wall of separation between ‘religion’ and ‘politics’ is both unjustified and probably counterproductive for democracy itself.” And with this reasoning we may have set foot on post-secular territory. And set the bridge on fire.” our friend Adela Toplean writes. I’d continue like that:… or  boldly go straight into the Apocalypse.

Explanation:

„Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God things that are God’s” (M 22:21)

„Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” (R 13:1-7)

Isn’t here an ostensible historical contradiction though? Because in the historical context of these words of the Apostle Paul [not Jesus] for Romans, some authorities  might have been established by God and worked under the authority of God. But many weren’t, not even back then – for instance the Roman Empire authorities.

Therefore today as well as in the biblical times the question remains: what do you do when political authority is not serving God and does the obvious wrong thing against God’s moral absolutes – the Truth and the Way? How do you make the difference? How does what Paul preached apply outside the strict institutional and historical context of the place and time he was preaching about political authority?

Tough questions. Everyday questions for every Christian. I don’t have the perfect answer. Instead here’s what I think based on what I know  so far and still learning about various religions and politics in historical perspective: religion has always been politically relevant since politics it’s done by people, and people always assume a religion, a creed, or better say a messianic belief, whether they believe in God, in other gods, or in the Man-god of atheism. Hence the problem:

1) it is true there is only one true God and only one god-given order of things [which is not the Quran’s order], yet most humans – more than 2/3 according to the official statistics – still don’t recognize and serve God as stated in the Good Book. Which means that authority, at least for 2/3 of humanity, is not established under the Rule of God, but outside or against it.

2) it is true that inside the Christian civilization, whether we are aware or not, all relations (with family, friends, associates or with authority) are touched by our founding religion. Yet even here authorities operate too often outside or against the Rule of God.

Therefore, when politics operates under other gods – all political religions do this; all leftist and totalitarian ideologies have a transcendent creed in some sort of gods – or takes over and distorts the absolute Truth and the Way, then everything goes south, i.e. the life and good future of  humans go down.

From here my present thought: it may occur that burning the institutional bridge that connects but also separates politics and religion while entering the post-secular „spiritual” millennium –  in which everyone believes what everyone wants under so many different religions contradicting God – we may be heading fast and boldly towards the Apocalypse.

The Apocalypse is long and hard. And only the very few that will be able to keep the absolutes of God – the Way and the Truth – will be saved in the end. I thought you should be at least warned. What path you choose remains your choice. But once warned you cannot pretend you didn’t know.

PS: for those who still don’t get it, here’s another book (I am about to recommend more from now on) stating actual facts about the absolutes of God and their results:

Religia păcii și Religia lui Marx. Exegeza sintagmei „popor palestinian”. Bruxelles 1973

Iata ce nu veti citi niciodata in NYT sau Newsweek. Cu atat mai putin in Newsweek Romania, aceasta „oaza de normalitate jurnalistica” de numai 12 lei pe saptamana – opinia apartine distinsului intelectual si „patriot european” A.Papahagi, autoasumat „crestin conservator de dreapta”.

Multi contemporani nestiutori [eufemism pentru ignoranta] utilizeaza azi sintagma „popor palestinian” in legatura cu conflictul arabo-israelian din Orientul Mijlociu. Vorbesc despre „luptatorii palestinieni pentru libertate”, freedom fighters – unul dintre nenumaratele eufemisme Corecte Politic pentru terorism anticrestin si antievreiesc, adica mahomedan.

De unde vine, totusi, istoric, aceasta sintagma? Cine sunt autorii, complicii si cand a inceput sa fie folosita prima data la nivel inalt, in documente oficiale, inclusiv ale Ligii Arabe? Raspunsul, respectiv adevarul, este bine ascuns la vedere, in chiar aceste documente analizate si prezentate publicului larg in succesiune si context istoric, in anul 2005, intr-o exceptionala lucrare elogiata chiar de NYTimes si istorici de reputatie internationala precum Niall Ferguson (cercetator principal la Jesus College, Oxford, UK, la Hoover Institution si Stanford US). Lucrarea se intituleaza Eurabia – The Euro-Arab Axis, si este semnata de Bat Ye’or.

 

Nasterea si miza sintagmei – nu si a „poporului palestinian”

Logical Song. The brutal logic of the world

Why do I write about the Logical song? Cause now, as well as back then, more than 30 years ago, it still depicts the brutal logic of the world.

I grew up with this song. I in school; my brother in the med school. In 1980, when it won the Grammy, in Romania you could only listen updated British or American music on radio Voice of America or Free Europe – on short waves, the tramsmission jamed like hell, the sound like crap. It took us a year to get the disc – foreign students in med school were smuggling music, jeans, „capitalistic” goods that we could only dream about most of the time; it’s good to have an older brother in the med school.

I grew up with this song which in spite of my young age – I was only twelve – I swear I understood it word by word, meaning by meaning. Who says a child doesn’t understand reality, especially when born in a world built against him – I was born in a totalitarian society – is utterly wrong. Many of us, many more then we should, did understand. The logic of reality in my world was more brutal than in the West, in UK or USA – the composers are British; the album’s title is Breakfast in America.

It’s a song about identity crisis. About indivduals versus society. About youth and its good part to preserve – the candor, the joy, the genuinge self – versus adulthood with the cynisism, hypocrisy and the hoard of sadnesses imposed by society. A song about meaning and purpose. About becoming

Robotul Sofica. Prostie Artificială și panică în populație

De weekend. Random thoughts – adica la intamplare. Din ciclul „Dumnezeu iubeste nevinovatia, nu imbecilitatea”(Nicolae Steinhardt)

M-am tot abtinut sa fac vreun comentariu cu privire la ingrijorarile iscate de robotul Sophie – o duduie cu fata si voce cica umane, epitomul femeii viitorului, zic ITistii si IAistii (de la Inteligenta Artificiala).

M-am abtinut, dar nu se mai poate. Pentru ca multi, se pare, chiar cred ca ce vad este „inteligenta artificiala” si ca viitorul (sau prezentul) e ceva gen Matrix sau Blade Runner (vedeti dvs, astia mai tineri, despre ce creatie de referinta a genului cinematografic vorbim) sau Terminator. Printre ei se numara si niste baieti cu prea multi bani si prea putin creier de prin minunata lume a islamului, pe care ii suspectez ca si-au comandat deja niste roboate din astea pentru haremul viitorului. Oricum, pana una alta, au invitat-o pe roboata Sofica la o prezentare in cadrul Initiativei Arabiei Saudite pentru Investitiile Viitorului (Saudi Arabia’s Future Investment Initiative). Voila:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMrX08PxUNY

Pe de alta parte, la noi in tarisoara se manifesta public mai mult temeri si ingrijorari cu privire la aceasta noua forma de „inteligenta artificiala”. Epitetul cel mai frecvent intalnit de mine in legatura cu subiectul fiind „infricosator”, chiar si atunci cand problema este tratata cu sarcasmul bine meritat, gen:

„Sophie, robotul umanoid intervievat de

Ruptura creierului nației de politică. Cinci observații și trei autori. Johnson, Scruton și Aligică

I. Despre intelectuali si politica. Paul Johson si Roger Scruton

Doi intelectuali si autori, si doua dintre lucrarile lor  mi-au servit fundamental in intelegerea relatiei dintre intelectuali si politica:

1)Intelectualii semnata Paul Johson, istoric britanic;

2) Fools, Frauds and Firebrands, Thinkers of the New Left (reeditare 2015 cu adaugiri la zi a lucrarii din 1985 a aceluiasi autor intitulata The thinkers of the New Left) de Roger Scruton, ganditor politic britanic – nu-mi mai place demult termenul de „filozof”; prea multi filozofi si absolventi de tot felul de filozofii in zilele noastre.

Sigur, de-a lungul timpului au fost mai multi cei care m-au ajutat sa navighez prin acest segment specific al realitatii, printre care Dragos Aligica ocupa un loc important. Dar cele doua lucrari nominalizate mai sus mi-au oferit mai multa claritate si perspectiva decat altele asupra relatiei dintre intelectuali si politica. Iar textul recent intitulat “INTINAREA INTELECTUALA”: POLITICA, INTELECTUALI SI CLEPTOCRATIE – text semnat si republicat de Dragos Aligica pe noua lui platforma, Marginalia, si pe care va rog sa-l cititi atent; aveti