| Hugo Santander | Newspaper_articles
|
| Peaceful Muslims are also Christians | A Pope for sinners | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| The 07-7
London massacre might awaken the British people to the certainty that
indulgency is a Christian virtue shared by millions of Muslims.
Until recently many a journalist was quick to justify suicide bombers
in the name of injustice. Thus, we were usually told that a Palestinian
youngster traveling to Tel-Aviv to blow himself in a
discotheque was a sub product of poverty and oppression, and that the
US and UK war on Iraq were the main justification of unbearable
atrocities to come. Even when the world heard that two British citizens
had killed themselves for the Palestinian cause, most newspaper editors
were
unable to grasp the pseudo-religious cause of their sacrifice. Only
now, when the number of British-born suicide bombers has dramatically
come to the spotlight, European journalists start to ask themselves
about the true
nature of Islam. Islamic fundamentalists resent Christianity as the dominant discourse in our political world. In spite of the low statistics of churchgoers, the hedonistic discourse of the Media and the injustices perpetrated by the Medieval Church and Modern Nations, Western leaders are careful to follow the principles stated in the universal Chart of Human Rights, a document that embodies the Christian principle of the defense of the weakest. Whereas Islamic martyrs are often sacrificed in war, after killing many enemies or (as it happens in our convulse times,) innocent women and children, Christian martyrs used to assume martyrdom for the sake of their murderers. The recent peaceful demonstrations in London do not vary very much from the demonstrations of the Primitive Christians in Rome. Londoners from all nations, creeds and races fortified last week in a peaceful silence, rejecting the irrational feelings of resentment and revenge. The teachings of Jesus have historically shone as the precepts of the just. From Jesus' healing of a non-Jewish woman to Saint Francis' reformation of the Church, from the conversion of Paul the warrior to Saint Paul to the works of Saint Therese in the suburbs of Calcutta, from the defense of the Indians in the New World by Bartolomé de las Casas to the defense of the Black Slaves in Cartagena by Saint Pedro Claver, Christianity has proved to be a religion beyond the limits of religion. Christian leaders trying to impose their creeds by force have invariably failed, most conspicuously in the crusades and the inquisition. In the chapter fifteen of the Book of Acts, the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, conclude that Christians are those who abstain from blood and from extramarital sexual intercourse (Acts, 15, 28-29); such hygienic requirement indicate that Christianity was born as a way of life rather than as a religion. Former rituals such as circumcision and fasting become irrelevant before the precepts of pacifism and monogamy. Jesus himself had prescribed that the conventions of the Church, though required, where quite irrelevant. Out of his visions, Swedenborg writes that the Church of the afterlife is merely conformed by the righteous, regardless of their age, sex, ethnicity or religion. Islamic fundamentalism might be remembered in the future as the fastest growing religion in a world where religion was no longer necessary as a source of political inspiration. Islamic fundamentalists relish themselves in the bloodiest history of Islam. They don't admire Mahomet as much for his teachings on tolerance and forgiveness as for his military campaigns. Not surprisingly most Islamic fundamentalists display a deep admiration for obsolete figures such as Julius Cesar, Napoleon or Hitler. Whereas Jesus Christ, faithful to his teaching of unconditional love, chose to die rather than to hurt a single enemy, Mahomet founded his creed in bloodshed and intrigue. Thus he married one of his many maidens just to convert her powerful unbeliever father; thus he ignored a peace treaty he had signed prior to his march to Mecca and ordered hundreds of defenseless male Jews to be executed. The Prophet justified these crimes and many others in the name of God, an argument that still echoes in the ears of Osama Bin Laden and his followers. Orthodox Christians have historically dismissed Mahomet's claim as a prophet on account of his warlike deeds: “Ye shall know them [the false prophets] by their fruits… A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” (Matthew 7: 15-20.) But in spite of the demeanors of its founder, Islam remains a religion of peace. A work of heavenly inspiration, The Koran abounds in passages of love and compassion that still guide the righteous lives of millions of Muslims. In an age where a Pope has publicly asked forgiveness for the crimes perpetrated by the Catholic Church, we can yearn for Islamic scholars and Imams willing to condemn the historical excesses of Islam. |
Years later, Russell's
most brilliant student, Ludwig Wittgenstein,
dismissed it bluntly by saying that no philosopher was going to
persuade him that whoring was a good thing. Wittgenstein's' remark,
which would have been more fairly applied to Sartre's work, reflects
the sentiment of the devote Christians of today. Before and after the election of Benedict XVI, the European Media has been fuelling a would-be struggle between liberals and conservatives within the Church. As a result Europeans have seen in the past few weeks a myriad of journalists with scant knowledge of theology, sympathising with their own 'liberal' views and that of their editors. Most European journalists preach that if the Church adapts to the morality of consumerism, it will 'reach' (whatever that means) the consumers of today; they preach that if the Church dismisses centuries of evangelisation by saying that fornicating is not a sin, but actually a virtue, chapels and cathedrals will be packed; they preach that if the Church promotes the use of condoms, instead of advising believers to practice monogamy, Aids will be prevented in Africa, Latin America and elsewhere. What most of them ignore, though, is that a Church with a worldly-fashioned morality is a contradiction of terms. Contrary to their own expectations, the introduction of female ministers and homosexual bishops by the Anglican Church has prompted many believers to shift their allegiance to the Church of Rome. A complete articulation of the Christian morality is a utopia that only saints seek to attain. As Jesus put it, no man or woman can be truly Holy but God. Notwithstanding, under the influence of Puritanism European journalists insist to associate sin to crime and punishment. But Christianity is a religion for sinners, where the faithful recognise themselves as children of God who transgress the will of their one merciful father. Anger, unfaithfulness, lying, deceit, conceit and laziness are just recurrent sins, not to mention the most common of them all: hypocrisy. This explains why the Church canonises Saints, those very few who appear to have exceeded other's lives by their piety and virtue. What would be the sentiment of Christians, then, if at their church they hear a gay priest telling them that from now on being unfaithful to their husbands or wives is all right, that women may get rid of their foetuses if they please, and that, since now promiscuity is not a sin, nuns will be selling condoms at the gate of the Church? Such attitude will certainly prompt true believers to quit their Church, shifting their allegiance to less 'liberal' creeds such as Islamism and Judaism. Religion is about redemption, and before redemption there is sin. But what do journalists really mean by 'liberalism'? The Media, as the recent manifestations of faith in Vatican city have demonstrated, is reluctant to conform to the feelings of the majority of the people. European public opinion appears to be but the dominant consensus of an elite of writers employed by multinational corporations. Their morality is the morality of selfish profit, which had been prophetically anticipated by Giambattista Vico more than three hundred years ago. As Jacques Barzun puts it out: "[Vico stated that] crowded city life produces men who are unbelievers, and who regard money as the measure of all things, and who lack moral qualities, particularly modesty, duty to the family and virile courage. Emancipated from ethics generally, they live by mutual spying and deceit (1)." The ethics of relapsing barbarism is but a variable morality that preaches understanding while condemning men, that preaches tolerance while denouncing adulterers, that preaches objectivity while fabricating controversies and scandal, and that mocks the fundament dogmas of the Church, such as the Holy Trinity, the Immaculate Conception and the Resurrection of Christ while displaying veneration for a non-existent Pope able to comply to their wishes. (1) Barzun, Jacques, "From Dawn to Decadence" (London: Harper Collins, 2000,) p. 315 |
||||||||
| Tsunami Lessons | On the Fall of Mr. Blunkett |
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
| Two
years after the September-11 events another disaster, this time caused
by what our scientists call nature, has destroyed some
of the favourite tourist attractions of the East. As a result several
of our most influential rulers and bankers have announced the beginning
of a new era, in which the economic measures that have assured the
misery and exploitation of the poor will be derogated. Their well publicised philanthropy contrast with the selfish mood reported in Washington hours before the Tsunami. On the 23rd of December Elizabeth Becker from The New York Times quoted some administration officials who told her that the food aid budget for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1 was at least $600 million less than what charities and aid agencies would need to carry out current programs. As a result organisation such as Catholic Relief Services had to cut back programs in Malawi, Madagascar and Indonesia. The unprecedented G-8 solidarity that the tsunami victims have enjoyed in the last few weeks are not mainly due to the attention that their suffering has inspired in the Western media, but to the unusual fact that their tragedy was shared by about three thousand citizens of the most prosperous nations of the world. The tsunami waves were unable to distinguish between natives and Europeans, credit-card holders and underpaid workers, tourists and servants, orphans and child abusers. Death imposed its overwhelming certainty over those who were told to live in the richest and most secure nations of the world and those who survived under the constant threat of hunger, humiliation and uncertainty. Not surprisingly a British journalist caught in the event described the attitude of the Asian Media as "stoic", for she could hardly understand the resignation of a people too well acquainted with death, and she, as many a journalist, failed to remember the 138.000 death-toll of the 1991 Bangladesh tsunami. As in the 1755 earthquake and tsunami that destroyed the city of Lisbon, several writers have pointed out the possibility or impossibility of a punishing God. These speculations, already discussed by Voltaire and Rousseau, are more indicative of a growing sense of culpability amongst Western journalists. For decades the coasts of Indonesia, Thailand and Eastern India have been denounced as prominent centres of child prostitution and pornography. According to the 2004 US State Department report on human trafficking, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Thailand are all "source, transit, and destination countries for persons trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation". Andrea Bertone, the director of HumanTrafficking.org. reports that "in these areas there may be child sex tourists who either come on holiday and are situational child sex tourists, or either they are pedophiles who actually may live in the area". Just days after the tsunami a UNICEF official reported getting an unsolicited text message, asking what type of child would be preferred. Once again the universe has underlined our fragility. In vain we seem to be great (Inutilmente parecemos grandes) writes the Portuguese poet Fernando Pessoa, for in the face of destruction and decay we have learnt to lament the certainty of death instead of celebrating the miracle of living. |
David
Blunkett, home secretary of the Blair Government, has resigned, victim
of the very policies that his hand had imposed on British immigrants.
He was accused of fast-tracking the visa application of his former
lover’s nanny, and later on of speeding another visa to a third country
on her behalf. Blunkett’s duplicitous ethics -which apply certain rules
to commoners and others to his relatives, friends and lovers are,
nonetheless, the ethics of every-day life. Politics are about commitments. An elected politician is said to be committed to serve the people-that, at least, in theory, for in the world of the Realpolitik advisers, donors, relatives and friends are the first to be favored by a ruler. And whereas modern governments counterbalance the new manifestations of Nepotism with laws and regulations, politicians are keen to interpret such laws to their own advantage. Mr. Blunkett’s resignation is but the latest casualty of the Puritan discourse that has pervaded English society since the execution of Charles II. Whereas the morality imparted by the Medieval Catholic Church was a morality of understanding, repentance and forgiveness, the creed of the Puritans is that of hypocrisy and condemnation. A man is respected as long as he is able to hide his abuses and peccadilloes. This morality has certainly changed, for vice has become the main asset of many a celebrity, an aftermath not only of the scandalous dimension of advertisement, but also of the harmless political influence of Hollywood. Puritanism, nonetheless, still controls the morality of public office, as the Clinton affair proved it in the US. Under the creed of Puritanism only hypocrites can survive. Robespierre may be the best example of the incorruptible politician willing to pursue the well of commons regardless of his own life. “I’m only human,” was the best possible defense that Mr. Blunkett could have uttered to the press, but no other defense could have sound more offensive to the ears of Luther or Calvino. The fact that a powerful figure fell into disgrace for the fast tracking of two bureaucratic documents is misleading. British journalists were angered by the fact that Mr. Blunkett had sustained an affair with a married woman for several years. The laws and procedures of the Home Office were devised to irritate emigrants, rather than to topple down ministers. Such contradiction will create a growing sense of culpability amongst British journalists- a situation that may favor Mr. Blunkett in a near future. |
||||||||
| A different voice: The big issue: Michael Moore | On the election of Mr. Bush | ||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
|
Andrew Anthony is very keen to display the contradictions, human vanity and expensive tastes of the Cannes-winning documen tary maker Michael Moore. Anthony's main assumption, though, is that every man or woman who dares to expose the flaws of the American system should be as pure as Saint Francis. Moore's documentaries may not be faithful to a Utopian conception of truth, but they appear to be sincere, and also display an uncommon sense of political independence. From The
Guardian |
European journalists, as a
matter of fact, continue being characters of
stiff prejudices. Whereas Americans can still express their opinions on
morality, Europeans editors fall into an extremely subtle ethical code,
a creature of Doctor Victor Frankenstein with body parts stolen from
Christianity, science, socialism and liberalism. Conservatism and neo-conservatism are but derisory terms reserved to all-powerful America. Whoever dares to challenge the current discourse of the European media is not even regarded with suspicion. He's quickly excluded as an outcast. Moreover when such critic happens to be an outsider, that’s to say, a foreigner. President Bush has the merit of being less hypocritical than average politicians are in our world. That might be a marketing strategy, or a license that the ruler of the dominant nation of our age can have. Slowly and doubtless painfully the European Intelligentsia realizes that the EU is a political project far behind from the United States’, and that its policies are subject to the mood of a country that, shaken and humiliated, has discovered in religion a force able to prolong their dreams. |
||||||||
| Colombia, in the view of the ONGs |
A matter of political correctness | ||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
| Dear Isabel Hilton, [Letter sent to 'The Guardian' as a response to the article by Isabel Hilton, «A president who wants a license to kill»] I have lived and worked in the US, Portugal, Kyrgyzstan and the UK as a University Professor. I’m a member of the Philosophical Society of England. In a recent meeting of the Colombian Community of London, we discussed the articles recently published by The Guardian on our government. It was our general impression that the views of your journalists are one-sided, mainly supplied by NGOs. As Colombian-born EU citizens, we have to cope with jokes on a daily basis: most of the people who have not lived in Colombia, still see in our country a banana Republic —similar to that depicted in the 007 film «A Licence to Kill», a nation subject to the will of a single individual, e.g., President Uribe. The press, I believe, bears some responsibility. Last October I travelled to Colombia for two months. Far for encountering the reign of terror described by you, I found a democratic country, made of people from different creeds, races and opinions. In 2002 a Barcelona editorial publish my first novel, where I pictured the current corruption in Colombia, denouncing the abuses of militaries AND guerrilla fighters. Enclosed to this message you will find an article which may enlighten your knowledge on Colombia. Sincerely, Hugo Santander CC: Mr. Alan Rusbridger |
After decades of civil conflict, the people of Colombia start to realize that an ideological battle is still to come. Whereas the government of President Uribe has achieved a social stability unknown to the youngest generations of Colombians, international NGOs, Trade Unions and Leftist Parties insist to stigmatized the Colombian government a far-right organization. I believe, as more Colombians, that such portrait is unbalanced —as any distinction between good and evil can be. Colombia, as any nation in conflict, has been the scenario of unaccountable murders, kidnappings and terrorist attacks. After the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1980s the Army Revolutionary of Colombia (FARC) presented itself as a Maoist guerrilla. The indifference of the Chinese government prompted their commanders to change their tactics. The relentless persecution of the Cartel Barons in the middle 1980s —which ended with the death of Pablo Escobar, left a wide gap in the world of drug-trafficking. The FARC assume such role, faithful to the Napoleonic principle that in war—as in love, everything must be allowed. Their tactics proved to be successful in the short term. Between 1994 and 2001 the FARC became the most powerful guerrilla group of the world; thousands of unemployed Colombian youngsters rallied to their ranks. As a pre-condition of a pretended peace process, the FARC took control of a track of land of the size of France in the heart of Colombia. During the 1990s the FARC became the wealthiest cocaine cartel of the world, able to hire Russian scientists and Irish terrorists alike. But as time went on the FARC became a too powerful guerrilla group. Dissident groups favored kidnapping as a war tactic. Criminal bangs saw a new opportunity amidst such a confusion, and the highly educated middle class became the victim of guerrilla fighters and criminals alike. By 1999 Colombia had become the most dangerous country of the world; nationals and foreigners were officially advised to fly from one city to another, that is, to avoid the main roads, where ambushes had become a daily mishap. In a desperate attempt to spread out the revolution, the FARC bombed several towers of energy, an unpopular act that backfired. Alvaro Uribe, whose father had been kidnapped and murdered by the very FARC, presented himself as the presidential candidate ready to cope with the guerrilla. In 2002 Uribe obtained an overwhelming victory over their peace-oriented rivals. By then the FARC had rejected their Maoist credentials. The leftist vacuum in Europe had induced them to reassume their Marxist credentials. Once in power Alvaro Uribe offered an amnesty to the guerrilla fighters. The FARC dismissed the proposal and an unofficial war started. With the support of the US technology, the FARC had suffered serious defeats: their track of land is now under military control, thousands of their fighters have deserted their ranks to embrace the Uribe amnesty, their most conspicuous leaders have been killed of arrested. According to unofficial sources, they still survive thanks to the support of Hugo Chávez, who allows them to cross the Venezuela frontier when under attack. Now that the rates of kidnapping and extortion had fallen by 26%, the Colombian population displays mixed feelings towards President Uribe. Very few ignore his dubious relationship with the paramilitary organization CONVIVIR, and very doubt that he has made of Colombia a safer place to live in. Uribe has taken measures in order to silence his enemies: he reminds them that he suffered a political defeat in Bogotá last year, when a Union leader won the major elections. He can also boast of being the only President who has been able to disarm the powerful paramilitary groups that took control of the west of the country. Human rights organizations are prompt to see in such a move an act that favors impunity, but as in any peace process it is difficult —if not impossible, to differentiate forgiveness from impunity. |
||||||||
Hugo Santander
2007 © All rights reserved