San Augustine of Hippo.
.
With the recent publication of the book in Spain Lay Anthology by Henri Peña-Ruiz and César Tejedor of the Church, published by the University of Salamanca, I revived an old concern. If memory does not betray me, it's been a couple of years I came to manifest in a forum, though probably not in a didactic enough to be understood.
The question in principle is quite simple. Why political or secular philosophical thought (or intended to be such) is that limitation in the language of theology? And, as I shall try to explain the consequences of this constraint are not exactly negligible.
For starters, the "spiritual freedom" (and corresponding "options") is a notion completely parallel to the so-called "religious freedom" and, therefore, an accomplice of the same, regardless of whether or not this the intention of its author.
Religious freedom is launching a kind of taxonomic reasoning (if I allow the extrapolation of the term) than any man in their right mind would accept in any other sphere of reality. Imagine if we define freedom sport leisure as follows: "You are free to be a player, member or supporter of Real Madrid, Barca or any other football club registered with the English Federation. Or is free to be completely free of any leisure-sports fans. We call this lack of hobbies. "Well, I suppose that in such absurdity would arise thousand angry voices saying "Hey, I practice swimming, because I like tennis, my husband, napping on a sofa, no one will win" and not worth continuing with the examples.
However, when we talk about religious freedom, common sense disappears, and what is the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or whatever belief of free choice is restricted in this way in the vast majority zafia of nations, and most especially in Spain, in its Constitution and legislative development.
Thus, the Organic Law of 1980 religious freedom in its second article reads:
"profess religious beliefs to freely choose or not to profess any, change or abandon confession that he had; express freely their own religious beliefs or lack thereof, or refrain from testifying about them. "
There apparently non-religious beliefs , not even in the sense of the term Ortega. In addition, firmly believe that all religion is necessarily fraud and that all theology is an ego trip ("egology" Unamuno), thinking rooted in some human beings among whom I count myself, it seems too "absence" of belief.
More striking, if anything, is the wording of article 525 of our Penal Code, amended by Act 1995:
"1. Incur the penalty of a fine of eight to twelve months which, to offend the feelings of members of a religious confession made public in speech, writing or any type of document, a mockery of their dogmas, beliefs, rituals and ceremonies or vejen, also publicly, to those who profess or practice. "
" 2. In the same penalties publicly ridicule those who do, in word or in writing, of those who do not profess any religion or belief. "
Note that 1 gives protection to beliefs and convictions Religious and individuals who profess. Point 2, only individuals and not comprehend the existence of belief or non-religious convictions.
The so-called "spiritual freedom" (and accompanying "spiritual options"), this reasoning not only reproduce restrictive and oppressive, but it worsens. The introduction to the book referred to read:
"Some men believe in God. Others do not. And still others are agnostics. These are the three major types of spiritual options. And such is the reality that we can start to outline the problem of the relationship between the temporal and spiritual life. "
Y I say that this approach heightens the restriction of religious freedom, because the latter includes forms of religion not linked to belief in God, such as Lamaism or animism. And, of course, both cite the example of religiosity that result in very strong power projects in time.
As an incarnation of Buddha, the Dalai Lama is not God. Does your spiritual choice is atheism or agnosticism? Well, in any case the intent of restoration of an autocratic state Lamaist in Tibet is so good today.
animist community legally recognized in Nigeria does not believe in God, but numinous beings. Are agnostics or atheist? The truth is that, constrained by laws enacted by temporal power, the members of these communities can not circumvent the taboos imposed by the hawkers of their beliefs.
If we make a brief journey through the world of religion (I recommend the history of ideas and beliefs of Mircea Eliade, for though a bitter enemy of their ideology, I bow to the weight of his tremendous erudition), the simplistic reductionism of "spiritual options" is revealed in its overwhelming reality.
However, if it is intended to be political philosophy, trying to account for different beliefs from which we can address this problem that concerns us all, the reduction of which can be seen as not covered by a belief in God in their very negativity (atheism or agnosticism) has nothing to envy the restrictive and oppressive of the so-called religious freedom.
Thus, one can be Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant ... Or not to believe in God (or evade the rule) in any of these versions, and all in the same boat in terms of project "temporary" or lack thereof. Remember the example used at the beginning of football and sports and leisure options ....
What happens is that from this point, the introduction of the book discussed is uses a purely theological language, whose origin, in its first version systematized, found in San Augustine, the spiritual world dichotomy / temporal world. It is, yes, a reinterpretation of the Augustinian political theology that ignores the reality of what they want religion.
"Religion, among other things, is linked to the idea of \u200b\u200bautonomy of the spiritual world with respect to the temporal world," it says in the book we discussed. And he adds that "the political instrumentalization of religion, combined with the domain of religion on politics, stain such autonomy."
is not understood well why the political project of democracy to be linked to the intention of tarnishing or not the autonomy of the "spiritual world." In fact, I invite you to find the adjective "spiritual" in a few dictionaries and encyclopedias you may have on hand, including the Internet to parade of all kinds of gurus, astrologers, magicians, necromancers, spiritualists ... in addition to religious enlightenment.
But as far as religion is concerned, and in particular the Augustinian dichotomy, the claim of autonomy of the "spiritual world" is always the claim for imposition of a political nature (ie, significantly "Terrestrial").
religions (especially the monotheistic, but we also saw the Tibetan example) are politics, nothing more than political and purely political: they are explicit attempts to set the earthly power, even in their prayers ("Thy will be done on Earth as in Heaven "). Its specificity is that this power "temporarily" from God or supernatural forces, whose designs only their representatives know and / or are able to interpret them. For those who hold political projects and social ethics under which power emanates (or should emanate, and conquest) of humans fold to that spiritual dichotomy is nonsense.
What is the Old Testament (or, if you will, the Torah) but a set of instructions for setting up political power here on Earth? What is Christianity, from its founder (San Pablo I mean, clear the "Nazarene", historically existed or not is a prophet, a guru, a leader framed in Judaism)? When the Church is not yet institutionalized, St. Paul addresses such earthly things as to dictate the political and social role of women, regular sex, the master / slave and the right attitude to political power. Once institutionalized the Church, and with an absolute monopoly of belief in the Roman Empire, what is the work of St. Augustine, if not a systematic political treatise, ethical and social information on how we should live on Earth? What is the Koran, but a lengthy civil and criminal code, directly connected by Allah to His Prophet?
What are we talking about when we realized the need for "no taint" the "autonomy of the spiritual world?
If the purpose of determining what is freedom of thought, conscience or belief, of free choice (regardless of religious or nonreligious thereof) accept for a moment the Augustinian dichotomy (and, I repeat, it seems a nonsense to do so), what we need to address is the "freedom on earth" and "terrestrial options." Here is where you really are in their positivity and their approaches are deployed in all proposals ideological, political, social, ethical ... (including, as we have seen, religious, concerned with earthly matters considerably.)
missing and more than the initial approach is "defiling" or "taint" the autonomy of these options of thought and conscience! Can a democratic state, not to sully the "scientific autonomy", to allow experiments on prisoners in concentration camps, such as those carried out by doctors in Nazi Germany? Why not sully the "artistic autonomy", can allow an operator inspired murder and mummify humans to produce stunning imagery? These are things that neither we considered. Now if this is the "spiritual autonomy" ... A tale of what are these considerations?
The speech is completely parallel to that make the great religions. The Message of John Paul II to the French Episcopal Conference on the centennial of the law of separation of church and the State, 11 February 2005 stated:
"Well understood, the principle of secularism, deeply rooted in your country, belongs to the Church's social doctrine. Recalls the need for a just separation of powers (cf. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, nos. 571-572), which echoes Christ's invitation to his disciples: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God "(Lk 20, 25). For its part, the non-denominational state, which is a non-interference of the civil power in the life of the Church and of different religions, and in the spiritual sphere, allowing all components of society work together in the service of everyone and the national community. "
Well, in a democratic state under the rule of law, which is ultimately the goal of secularism, non-government meddling in the affairs of thought and conscience (and the groups that form around them) is an inescapable requirement (these groups are religious or not) ... But this is an unavoidable requirement while such groups do not commit crimes and do not contravene human rights. And if they do, not only the intervention is legitimate but is required by those who are violated. And here there can be no treatment or privileges except for the fact character with a "spiritual." I keep wondering what it comes with that "stain" or "taint."
The examples I've put up on the "scientific autonomy" or "artistic autonomy" are not as exaggerated as pilgrims at first appear. The Catholic Church has spent centuries torturing hundreds of thousands of human beings, and continues today. Just type notions as "Church and sexual abuse" or "Church and pedophilia" in a major search engine to display an overwhelming information. And, in most cases, public authorities are inhibited, why respect for the "autonomy of the spiritual realm, allowing the clergy to resolve the matter morally blackmailed the victims or bribed with" charity "money to silence their voices. Many common abusers and rapists and would like to have the same immunity "spiritual"!
This language so politically correct, so eager to please the powers that be, whose parallels with the notions of "religious freedom" and "spiritual autonomy", proclaimed by the jerifaltes of all major religions, are manifest, "actually serves to promote secularism or to understand what it is? Is not it rather the way, although this is not the intention of its author, to give credence and strength to a dichotomy, from St. Augustine, has served the oppression of human beings?
The question in principle is quite simple. Why political or secular philosophical thought (or intended to be such) is that limitation in the language of theology? And, as I shall try to explain the consequences of this constraint are not exactly negligible.
For starters, the "spiritual freedom" (and corresponding "options") is a notion completely parallel to the so-called "religious freedom" and, therefore, an accomplice of the same, regardless of whether or not this the intention of its author.
Religious freedom is launching a kind of taxonomic reasoning (if I allow the extrapolation of the term) than any man in their right mind would accept in any other sphere of reality. Imagine if we define freedom sport leisure as follows: "You are free to be a player, member or supporter of Real Madrid, Barca or any other football club registered with the English Federation. Or is free to be completely free of any leisure-sports fans. We call this lack of hobbies. "Well, I suppose that in such absurdity would arise thousand angry voices saying "Hey, I practice swimming, because I like tennis, my husband, napping on a sofa, no one will win" and not worth continuing with the examples.
However, when we talk about religious freedom, common sense disappears, and what is the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or whatever belief of free choice is restricted in this way in the vast majority zafia of nations, and most especially in Spain, in its Constitution and legislative development.
Thus, the Organic Law of 1980 religious freedom in its second article reads:
"profess religious beliefs to freely choose or not to profess any, change or abandon confession that he had; express freely their own religious beliefs or lack thereof, or refrain from testifying about them. "
There apparently non-religious beliefs , not even in the sense of the term Ortega. In addition, firmly believe that all religion is necessarily fraud and that all theology is an ego trip ("egology" Unamuno), thinking rooted in some human beings among whom I count myself, it seems too "absence" of belief.
More striking, if anything, is the wording of article 525 of our Penal Code, amended by Act 1995:
"1. Incur the penalty of a fine of eight to twelve months which, to offend the feelings of members of a religious confession made public in speech, writing or any type of document, a mockery of their dogmas, beliefs, rituals and ceremonies or vejen, also publicly, to those who profess or practice. "
" 2. In the same penalties publicly ridicule those who do, in word or in writing, of those who do not profess any religion or belief. "
Note that 1 gives protection to beliefs and convictions Religious and individuals who profess. Point 2, only individuals and not comprehend the existence of belief or non-religious convictions.
The so-called "spiritual freedom" (and accompanying "spiritual options"), this reasoning not only reproduce restrictive and oppressive, but it worsens. The introduction to the book referred to read:
"Some men believe in God. Others do not. And still others are agnostics. These are the three major types of spiritual options. And such is the reality that we can start to outline the problem of the relationship between the temporal and spiritual life. "
Y I say that this approach heightens the restriction of religious freedom, because the latter includes forms of religion not linked to belief in God, such as Lamaism or animism. And, of course, both cite the example of religiosity that result in very strong power projects in time.
As an incarnation of Buddha, the Dalai Lama is not God. Does your spiritual choice is atheism or agnosticism? Well, in any case the intent of restoration of an autocratic state Lamaist in Tibet is so good today.
animist community legally recognized in Nigeria does not believe in God, but numinous beings. Are agnostics or atheist? The truth is that, constrained by laws enacted by temporal power, the members of these communities can not circumvent the taboos imposed by the hawkers of their beliefs.
If we make a brief journey through the world of religion (I recommend the history of ideas and beliefs of Mircea Eliade, for though a bitter enemy of their ideology, I bow to the weight of his tremendous erudition), the simplistic reductionism of "spiritual options" is revealed in its overwhelming reality.
However, if it is intended to be political philosophy, trying to account for different beliefs from which we can address this problem that concerns us all, the reduction of which can be seen as not covered by a belief in God in their very negativity (atheism or agnosticism) has nothing to envy the restrictive and oppressive of the so-called religious freedom.
Thus, one can be Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant ... Or not to believe in God (or evade the rule) in any of these versions, and all in the same boat in terms of project "temporary" or lack thereof. Remember the example used at the beginning of football and sports and leisure options ....
What happens is that from this point, the introduction of the book discussed is uses a purely theological language, whose origin, in its first version systematized, found in San Augustine, the spiritual world dichotomy / temporal world. It is, yes, a reinterpretation of the Augustinian political theology that ignores the reality of what they want religion.
"Religion, among other things, is linked to the idea of \u200b\u200bautonomy of the spiritual world with respect to the temporal world," it says in the book we discussed. And he adds that "the political instrumentalization of religion, combined with the domain of religion on politics, stain such autonomy."
is not understood well why the political project of democracy to be linked to the intention of tarnishing or not the autonomy of the "spiritual world." In fact, I invite you to find the adjective "spiritual" in a few dictionaries and encyclopedias you may have on hand, including the Internet to parade of all kinds of gurus, astrologers, magicians, necromancers, spiritualists ... in addition to religious enlightenment.
But as far as religion is concerned, and in particular the Augustinian dichotomy, the claim of autonomy of the "spiritual world" is always the claim for imposition of a political nature (ie, significantly "Terrestrial").
religions (especially the monotheistic, but we also saw the Tibetan example) are politics, nothing more than political and purely political: they are explicit attempts to set the earthly power, even in their prayers ("Thy will be done on Earth as in Heaven "). Its specificity is that this power "temporarily" from God or supernatural forces, whose designs only their representatives know and / or are able to interpret them. For those who hold political projects and social ethics under which power emanates (or should emanate, and conquest) of humans fold to that spiritual dichotomy is nonsense.
What is the Old Testament (or, if you will, the Torah) but a set of instructions for setting up political power here on Earth? What is Christianity, from its founder (San Pablo I mean, clear the "Nazarene", historically existed or not is a prophet, a guru, a leader framed in Judaism)? When the Church is not yet institutionalized, St. Paul addresses such earthly things as to dictate the political and social role of women, regular sex, the master / slave and the right attitude to political power. Once institutionalized the Church, and with an absolute monopoly of belief in the Roman Empire, what is the work of St. Augustine, if not a systematic political treatise, ethical and social information on how we should live on Earth? What is the Koran, but a lengthy civil and criminal code, directly connected by Allah to His Prophet?
What are we talking about when we realized the need for "no taint" the "autonomy of the spiritual world?
If the purpose of determining what is freedom of thought, conscience or belief, of free choice (regardless of religious or nonreligious thereof) accept for a moment the Augustinian dichotomy (and, I repeat, it seems a nonsense to do so), what we need to address is the "freedom on earth" and "terrestrial options." Here is where you really are in their positivity and their approaches are deployed in all proposals ideological, political, social, ethical ... (including, as we have seen, religious, concerned with earthly matters considerably.)
missing and more than the initial approach is "defiling" or "taint" the autonomy of these options of thought and conscience! Can a democratic state, not to sully the "scientific autonomy", to allow experiments on prisoners in concentration camps, such as those carried out by doctors in Nazi Germany? Why not sully the "artistic autonomy", can allow an operator inspired murder and mummify humans to produce stunning imagery? These are things that neither we considered. Now if this is the "spiritual autonomy" ... A tale of what are these considerations?
The speech is completely parallel to that make the great religions. The Message of John Paul II to the French Episcopal Conference on the centennial of the law of separation of church and the State, 11 February 2005 stated:
"Well understood, the principle of secularism, deeply rooted in your country, belongs to the Church's social doctrine. Recalls the need for a just separation of powers (cf. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, nos. 571-572), which echoes Christ's invitation to his disciples: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God "(Lk 20, 25). For its part, the non-denominational state, which is a non-interference of the civil power in the life of the Church and of different religions, and in the spiritual sphere, allowing all components of society work together in the service of everyone and the national community. "
Well, in a democratic state under the rule of law, which is ultimately the goal of secularism, non-government meddling in the affairs of thought and conscience (and the groups that form around them) is an inescapable requirement (these groups are religious or not) ... But this is an unavoidable requirement while such groups do not commit crimes and do not contravene human rights. And if they do, not only the intervention is legitimate but is required by those who are violated. And here there can be no treatment or privileges except for the fact character with a "spiritual." I keep wondering what it comes with that "stain" or "taint."
The examples I've put up on the "scientific autonomy" or "artistic autonomy" are not as exaggerated as pilgrims at first appear. The Catholic Church has spent centuries torturing hundreds of thousands of human beings, and continues today. Just type notions as "Church and sexual abuse" or "Church and pedophilia" in a major search engine to display an overwhelming information. And, in most cases, public authorities are inhibited, why respect for the "autonomy of the spiritual realm, allowing the clergy to resolve the matter morally blackmailed the victims or bribed with" charity "money to silence their voices. Many common abusers and rapists and would like to have the same immunity "spiritual"!
This language so politically correct, so eager to please the powers that be, whose parallels with the notions of "religious freedom" and "spiritual autonomy", proclaimed by the jerifaltes of all major religions, are manifest, "actually serves to promote secularism or to understand what it is? Is not it rather the way, although this is not the intention of its author, to give credence and strength to a dichotomy, from St. Augustine, has served the oppression of human beings?
.
SEE THE REPLY OF THE CHURCH CASEY WEAVER:
0 comments:
Post a Comment