Is there a right to ignorance, but for the poor people who could not study, not for the Nobel Prize, nor for the" masters of thought "who pontificate from the headlines by taking topical embarrassing.
You can not make war injury using bias (more stupid), you can not fight obscurantism showing the most crass ignorance.
Nor for a cause noble as the final salvation of the poor Sakineh, the Iranian girl from the look sweet and sad, which was suspended yesterday by stoning.
What I mean? The first page of the Republic yesterday. That, under the title "The appeal of Nobel 'Save Sakineh'" reported, in large type, this text quotes: "Stop the horror on the woman's body. Medieval Stoning is a punishment that does not exist in the Koran. "
Absurdity
I rubbed my eyes and I read: "The stoning is medieval." Under this colossal nonsense, reproduced in brackets and in large type, the Republic reported the names of Nobel Prize winners Shirin Ebadi, Luc Montagnier, Rita Levi Montalcini, Harald zur Hausen, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji and Gerhard Ertl. But
Article suggests that the sentence is of the lawyer in Iran, Nobel Peace Prize, Shirin Ebadi who literally said: "Stoning is a form of medieval punishment that does not exist on the Koran."
Forget the second part of the sentence ("a punishment that does not exist in the Koran"), though I suspect that the mullahs in Tehran know what they say the Koran and other texts of Islam better than us.
The thing that made me jump and the other, because it is blatantly false, "stoning is medieval." I do not know if the intended Ebadi speak of "Islamic Middle Ages," I doubt it because would otherwise have had to say.
In any case, as the Republic does not come out in Iran, but in Italy, since the Middle Ages wrote tout-court (without the adjective Islamic), since this is the definition of the Christian era date from the Enlightenment, and as is typical post-Enlightenment European culture attributed to the Christian Middle Ages any turpitude, it is natural to understand the "proclamation" that yesterday was on the front page of the Republic as an anathema against the Middle Ages, by definition, our Middle Ages.
So here it is to be startled. When ever in the Middle Ages the alleged adulterous women are stoned? For the sake I wanted to consult a professional medievalist 24 carat as Franco Cardini, of course, denied that medieval Christians believed women stoned adulterers.
fact. The famous passage from the Gospel where Jesus saves the adulteress from stoning, as required by Jewish law at that time, marked a historic turning point. The mercy and forgiveness of God break into the world and recreate.
Jesus the liberator of women
That page is a milestone because it is so dramatic all the news brought by Jesus than the old law. It 'a revolution that he should pay with his life.
Jesus shows the world the touching tenderness of God toward sinners, reveals the "Merciful Father" running to meet the prodigal son repented and fills him with hugs and honors.
Jesus utters his harsh words against those who consider themselves "decent", against those who claim to be a sinner, he does not need forgiveness and that he was entitled to stone others.
These "masters of the law" is that he called "hypocrites" and "whitewashed tombs." Jesus thunders: "Serpents, brood of vipers! As you can avoid the punishment of hell? "(Matthew 23, 4 ff). Jesus tells them provocatively, "tax collectors and harlots go into the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 21, 31). After
Jesus the world is no longer the same. Also ends the horror of slavery for women. You do not kill a woman than for his alleged sin. It was a horror that unites all civilizations: the Roman Empire, home of the law, a woman could be killed by her husband or the father even for trivial reasons, such as drinking wine.
Eva Cantarella, in his book "After the next", said a daughter's father has the right to life or death (eg Pontius Aufidius killed innocent when he discovered that his daughter had been raped).
And of course the husband can kill his wife have committed adultery with her. But not vice versa. Cato said: "If surprised when your wife commits adultery, you can kill with impunity, and if she catches you, but can not touch you even with one finger. "
accepted social practice was the removal or abandonment of female children or even give his wife as Cato said that his friend Hortensius Marzia (Octavian became even give Livia from her husband).
Christianity begins with the only real and lasting revolution for women. E 'with Jesus, literally with his coming, that the woman acquires a dignity which had never had and that, legally, is equal to man. And the highest among the creatures will be the Madonna.
remember that even Roberto Benigni in his reading of Dante's Divine Comedy, commenting on the Paradise XXXIII, which begins with the famous prayer to the Virgin, said: "The woman began to have a chance to say 'yes' or 'no' since God himself has Mary of Nazareth asked his free yes or no. "
The Middle Ages is the first great flowering of Christian civilization and it is finally the time in history when we are no longer able to stone the adulteress, nor consider the woman an object on which to exercise the right of life or death.
Someone will object: but how, we are giving us to do to save a poor woman from the barbaric stoning and you plant a grenade in defense of the Middle Ages. Yes, because ultimately the salvation of many Sakineh is only in the newness brought by Christianity. How was it for Europe.
It 's true then the opposite of what he proclaimed the front page of the Republic. Just mark the Middle Ages, in world history, the end of the horror. Ebadi was to say, unfortunately we are not Christian Middle Ages.
Obviously it is not that the Middle Ages was only full of saints, the men continued to be sinners and barbarians. But he had reversed the course of history that went to the systematic oppression and violence upon the weak and the elderly, the sick, children and women. The Middle Ages will have had his faults, but not stoned women.
Umberto Eco, which is an authoritative signature of the Republic and is a fan of that age could explain in a moment in the drafting of that paper. Because it is incredible that the daily newspaper, a major newspaper such as the Republic fall into this colossal error.
Prejudices
How can this happen? He says Cardini, "because on average there are things you can talk about evil with impunity: the Middle Ages is one of them. And so to speak ill of Christianity on which all feel entitled to spit. "
There is a wonderful book of French medieval historian Régine Pernoud, published by Simon and Schuster, "Middle Ages. An old injury, "which demolishes its many clichés that the eighteenth century were libelous unfairly distributed on the Middle Ages. Based on falsehood and ignorance.
Ignorance, prejudice fed clichés, poor knowledge of history are all ingredients that the wider global anti-Christian prejudice, or even "anti-Catholic prejudice," the sociologist Philip Jenkins, in his book, called "The only injury admitted."
In fact, the era of "political correctness", which has banned all prejudices based on ethnicity, religious, sexual or social, admits only that the Catholic Church.
On the Church and the Catholics of today and yesterday you can shoot with impunity and cultural moral convictions, unwarranted and unfair.
Antonio Socci on "liberation" of September 9, 2010
0 comments:
Post a Comment