Tedenski izbor


branje6

“I wouldn’t call myself a conservative, but neither would I own to liberal. I’ll take just plain old “Catholic,” thanks” – writes with the following thought experiment:

Imagine a gay male couple who have been together for 20 years. They live nearby. You know them well, having a friendly non-political neighborly relationship. You borrow the odd egg, watch each other’s pets when somebody is on vacation, maybe chat at the annual 4th of July party. You are an orthodox Christian who runs a bakery business. Now apply the following scenarios:

A) One of the gay guys has a birthday. His partner asks you to bake the cake. Would you?

B) One of the gay guys dies. His partner asks you to bake the cake for the reception after the funeral. Would you?

C) Marriage is suddenly legalized in your state. They marry and ask you to bake the cake. Would you?

Seems to me that if the answer is no, no, and no, then you ought to examine yourself for homophobia.

But if the answer is yes, yes and no – that’s my answer – then you are arguably simply being principled. I can say “yes” to A and B because I can honor their friendship and loyalty to each other, their faithful service to each other over years. However, I say “no” to C because marriage is not an institution that can be defined entirely in terms of affection, loyalty and service. Or even eros or heartfelt private romantic feelings. Marriage includes all those things, but it exists is a social institution because the fertility of male and female potentially creates uniquely public consequences (children).

The left disputes my premise for saying no to C. Fine, let’s have that debate. People of goodwill can disagree.

But we are not even allowed to have that debate. My side’s case is dismissed by the liberal elite because they think people like me are haters.

Given that I want to say yes to situations A and B, I think it’s demonstrable that I’m not a hater or homophobe. I am not frightened of gay people and I do not hate them. I just do not think that what they are doing is marriage, and I think calling what they’re doing “marriage” will obscure what marriage is.

Cake and Cosmology – Rod Dreher, The American Conservative

***

The only clear biblical meta-narrative is about male and female. Sex is an area of Jewish law that Jesus explicitly makes stricter. What we now call the “traditional” view of sexuality was a then-radical idea separating the early church from Roman culture, and it’s remained basic in every branch of Christianity until very recently. Jettisoning it requires repudiating scripture, history and tradition (…)

I take a different view of what they could have known. But yes, the evidence that homosexuality isn’t chosen — along with basic humanity — should inspire repentance for cruelties visited on gay people by their churches. But at Christianity’s bedrock is the idea that we are all in the grip of an unchosen condition, an “original” problem that our wills alone cannot overcome. So homosexuality’s deep origin is not a trump card against Christian teaching.

Interview With a Christian – Ross Douthat, The New York Times

***

I was raised by a lesbian couple and had to build bridges to my estranged father in my late twenties. Much of the connection to my father and the benefits of growing up with him were irreparably lost by the time I was a grown man—but at least, I knew who my father was and where to find him. I could salvage my ancestry.

A new generation of children will not even have that consolation I had. Conceived in loveless fertility clinics, gestated in the wombs of women they will never meet, trafficked from poor biological families with the help of complicit governments, “adopted” through a social services system corrupted by money and political pressure, or torn from their birth parents by family court judges who are desperate to please the gay lobby, the new generation of children will be far worse off than I was.

When the debate over gay marriage has receded, when their gay guardians are dead and buried, when the world has moved on, these children will still never be able to recover their heritage.

After Indiana, Gay-Marriage Supporters Should Look in the Mirror – Robert Oscar Lopez, Ethika Politika

***

Gre za spremembe, ki so še veliko bolj radikalne, kot je bil Družinski zakonik. Lahko razložite, v čem? Kakšne posledice dolgoročno prinašajo?

Po dveletnem pregovarjanju v parlamentu o Družinskem zakoniku je takratni minister Svetlik nekoliko popustil in ohranil definicijo zakonske zveze kot življenjske skupnosti moža in žene. Je pa v naslednjih členih po ovinku v to zvezo pripeljal tudi istospolno skupnost. Sedanja sprememba zakona pa kar naravnost in na začetku popolnoma izenači obe skupnosti in tudi istospolni partnerski skupnosti priznava pomen, ki je v zasnovanju družine. To je tako, kot bi izenačili avto in letalo ter rekli, da je tudi pomen avtomobila leteti nad oblaki. Taka vratolomna bedarija pa ni samo smešna, ampak zelo nevarna. Ker zasnovanje družine v svojem bistvu predpostavlja izhodiščni potencial spočetja, rojstva in vzgoje otrok, bo gejevski ali lezbični par lahko sledil temu pomenu le ob izdatni pomoči države z umetnim oplojevanjem, nadomestnim materinstvom in posvojitvijo otrok.

(…)

Zakaj istospolna skupnost ne bi mogla biti družina?

Ker je družina osnovna celica naroda. Celica pa je lahko le tista živa tvorba, ki je na nek način samostojna in v načelu nosi v sebi temeljni potencial reprodukcije (razmnoževanja). Je nekako samozadostna, saj predstavlja najbolj kakovostno in vsestransko naravno okolje za življenje, vzgojo in socializacijo otroka, to je narodovega naraščaja.

(…)

Čudna je ta naša družba! Zavračamo gensko spremenjeno hrano, odpiramo pa vrata – slikovito rečeno – proizvodnji »gensko spremenjenih otrok«. Istospolna skupnost namreč lahko le na umeten način uresniči svoj pomen, ki je po tem zakonu v »zasnovanju družine«.

“To je tako, kot bi rekli, da je tudi pomen avtomobila leteti nad oblaki” – Intervju s Francetom Cukjatijem, Iskreni.net

***

Medtem ko z ustavljanjem varčevanja ZL ne bo imela nobenega dela, je smiselno, da pogledamo, ali ni bilo tudi tisto o privatizaciji bolj prazna puhlica. In res, tudi tam komaj obstaja »potreba« po njihovem delovanju, saj se privatizacija že zdaj skoraj ne premakne naprej. V letu 2014 je bilo prodanih vsega šest državnih podjetij. Leto smo po analizi GZS sklenili še s 642 podjetji,* v katerih je imela država najmanj kontrolni delež, in z največjim deležem gospodarstva, kjer ima država večinske deleže, v vsej Evropski uniji. Več o tem, kako so državna podjetja v obdobju 2007-2014 vsakega izmed nas stala 6.600 evrov, pa si lahko preberete v povzetku analize na povezavi [ec.europa.eu] . Za predstavo, kako hudo je: celo če bi zelo pospešili tempo privatizacije in od danes naprej vsak drugi teden prodali eno državno podjetje, bi jih bilo za Meščev petdeseti rojstni dan v državni lasti še vedno prek 60.

(…)

Med revolucionarji se seveda najdejo tudi taki, ki mi bodo odgovorili, da je pač vloga države, da na »strateških področjih« planira delovanje gospodarstva »v javno dobro« (javno dobro določijo revolucionarji). Te bi rad le pozval, da svoj razmislek pripeljejo do konca – planiranje strateških panog prek lastništva v državnih podjetjih namreč pomeni preferiranje državnih podjetij. Pomeni neposredno vpletanje politike v gospodarstvo, nedovoljene državne pomoči in tako dalje. Zakonodaja na primer ne dopušča, da bi politika Telekom kar avtomatično izbrala za to ali ono storitev ali subvencijo – to bi bilo izkrivljanje trga v korist enega ponudnika. Domačo zakonodajo proti opisanemu seveda lahko odpravijo, evropske pač ne. Sicer res pretežno socialdemokratska Evropska unija je namreč vendarle zavezana vsaj k nekemu približku tržne ekonomije in tako imenovani demokratični socializem je lahko realiziran le zunaj nje. Zato prav – promovirajte ta svoj novostari socializem, a bodite vsaj toliko pošteni in ljudem povejte, kaj je eden od prvih potrebnih korakov za realizacijo jedra vašega programa: izstop iz EU. Pa da vidimo, kaj vam bodo ljudje odgovorili potem. Pričakujem, da grško-slovenska zveza vendarle ne bo tako popularna alternativa.

Revolucija je tukaj, naslednja postaja: izstop iz Unije! – Rok Novak, Finance

***

Late last year, I came across a Russian manual called Information-Psychological War Operations: A Short Encyclopedia and Reference Guide (The 2011 edition, credited to Veprintsev et al, and published in Moscow by Hotline-Telecom, can be purchased online at the sale price of 348 roubles). The book is designed for “students, political technologists, state security services and civil servants” – a kind of user’s manual for junior information warriors. (…)

I had always imagined the phrase “information war” to refer to some sort of geopolitical debate, with Russian propagandists on one side and western propagandists on the other, both trying to convince everyone in the middle that their side was right. But the encyclopedia suggested something more expansive: information war was less about methods of persuasion and more about “influencing social relations” and “control over the sources of strategic reserves”. Invisible weapons acting like radiation to override biological responses and seize strategic reserves? The text seemed more like garbled science fiction than a guide for students and civil servants.

But when I began to pore over recent Russian military theory – in history books and journals – the strange language of the encyclopedia began to make more sense.

(…)

In 2013 the head of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Valery Gerasimov, claimed that it was now possible to defeat enemies through a “combination of political, economic, information, technological, and ecological campaigns”. This was part of a vision of war which lay not in the realm of physical contact but in what Russian theorists described as the “psychosphere”. These wars of the future would be fought not on the battlefield but in the minds of men.

Disinformation and psychological operations are as old as the Trojan horse. But what distinguished the Kremlin’s approach from that of its western rivals was this new stress on the “psychosphere” as the theatre of conflict. The information operation was no longer auxiliary to some physical struggle or military invasion: now it had become an end in itself. Indeed, as the Russian encyclopedia for its practitioners concluded: “Information war … is in many places replacing standard war.”

Inside the Kremlin’s wall of mirrors – Peter Pomerantsev, The Guardian

***

In post-Soviet Russia, you don’t make memes. Memes make (or unmake?) you.

That is, at least, the only conclusion we can draw from an announcement made this week by Russia’s three-year-old media agency/Internet censor Roskomnadzor, which made it illegal to publish any Internet meme that depicts a public figure in a way that has nothing to do with his “personality.”

Sad Keanu? Nope.

Sad Putin? Absolutely not.

(…)

if the policy is enforced, the implications for the Russian memeosphere could be huge: According to a recent academic census of English-speaking memes, nearly a third of the Internet’s most popular memes depict a specific person. Just think of how many excellent memes depict Vladimir Putin!

Russia just made a ton of internet memes illegal – Caitlin Dewey, The Washington Post

***

O začetkih komunistične revolucije na Primorskem lahko rečemo, da so primeri neposrednega revolucionarnega nasilja do pomladi 1943 redki. Primorci so partizansko delovanje namreč čutili bolj posredno, predvsem preko italijanskega maščevanja za izvedene partizanske akcije. Neposredno partijsko nasilje pa se je okrepilo sredi leta 1943, še zlasti po kapitulaciji Italije jeseni 1943. Zaostrila se je komunistična sestavina t.i. narodno-osvobodilnega gibanja, kar je posledično vodilo v vse večje revolucionarno nasilje tudi na Primorskem, ki je jeseni leta 1943 in sredi leta 1944 doseglo svoj vrhunec in rodilo tudi nekaj oborožene protirevolucije.

(…)

Na Primorskem se dve pomembni politični grupaciji nista odločili za splošni upor pod vodstvom OF in sta stopali po lastni poti: protikomunistična struja, ki se je navezovala na Slovensko zavezo v Ljubljani, in t. i. goriška sredina, ki je do jeseni 1944 čakala, komu se bo priključila. Oboji so še vedno videli legitimnega sogovornika v kraljevi begunski vladi v Londonu.

Poleg omenjenih je potrebno omeniti še široko razvejano skupino pripadnikov samostojnega obveščevalnega omrežja, ki je sodelovalo z Državno obveščevalno službo (DOS) v sklopu Jugoslovanske vojske v domovini. V stiku z Britanci sta prozahodno, projugoslovansko in protinacistično usmerjene patriote vodila znani polkovnik jugoslovanske vojske, diplomat in obveščevalec Vladimir Vauhnik (1896–1955) ter obveščevalec hrvaškega rodu major Ante Anić, predvojni policijski komisar v Mariboru. Omenjeno nazorsko in nacionalno heterogeno družbo je družila želja, da bi v svetovnem spopadu zmagali svoboda in demokracija.

Pohaba resnice – Renato Podbersič ml., Časnik

***

Če primerjamo današnji čas s tistim neposredno pred prelomom s totalitarnim sistemom, ugotovimo, da smo pravzaprav dosegli kvantni preskok. Tisti, ki so bili včasih, tudi v akademskih in strokovnih vodah, da o političnih niti ne govorim, izrecno proti zametkom današnje ustave, danes nanjo z vso silo vsaj deklarativno prisegajo; jo ali so jo uporabljali kot (ustavni) sodniki in sklicujoč se samo na svojo vest, ker jim tako nalaga ta ista ustava, so ali še zasedajo v slovenskem hramu demokracije.

Seveda, boste rekli, eno je deklaratorno zaklinjanje na ustavo, drugo pa je njeno dejansko izvrševanje v praksi. Drži. Toda, bodimo vsaj enkrat optimisti in poglejmo na diskrepanco med normativnim in dejanskim s pozitivne plati. Jasno, v pretežnem delu slovenskih institucionalnih akterjev v najširšem smislu gre, če si lahko izposodim Krasnerjev izraz, za organizirano hipokrizijo. Gre za to, kot pravi prej omenjeni avtor odlične knjige o suverenosti z mojo rahlo prafrazo, da »ti [akterji] retorično podpirajo normativna načela in pravila [slovenske ustave], a njihove politike in dejanja to isto [ustavo] kršijo.«

(…)

Gre za fantastičen uspeh, ker organizirana hipokrizija, ki je – kot vsaka hipokrizija – sicer sila nečedno osebno stanje, že zgolj zaradi svoje deklaratornosti ljudi retorično sili, da prilagodijo svoja ravnanja tistim načelom in pravilom, v katera v resnici niso in, čeprav moramo dopustiti tudi drugačno možnost, niti še danes iskreno ne verjamejo. Organizirana hipokrizija svoje akterje spremeni v žrtve svojega uspeha in polagoma, s pomočjo rablja hudega, preliva retoriko tudi v prakso.

Organizirana hipokrizija – Matej Avbelj, Ius Info

***

Diversity of political ideas is not to be found on most college campuses, where the range of ideas is usually from the moderate left to the extreme left, and conservatives are rare as hen’s teeth among the faculty — especially in English departments. Academics who go ballistic about an “under-representation” of ethnic minorities in various other institutions are blissfully blind to the under-representation of conservatives among the professors they hire. On many campuses, students can go through all four years of college without ever hearing a conservative vision of the world, even from a visiting speaker.

The problem is not political, but educational. As John Stuart Mill pointed out, back in the 19th century, students must hear opposing views from people who actually believe them, not as presented by people who oppose them. In the 18th century, Edmund Burke warned against those who “teach the humours of the professor, rather than the principles of the science.”

Who Trashes Liberal Arts? – Thomas Sowell, Townhall.com

***

V tistem bifeju sem doživel svojo točko identifikacije z zgodbo dr. Pašića, ki je poskušal spremeniti jeseniško letargijo. Sam sem to davno poskušal na slovenski kulturniški sceni in seveda so me zavračali, kajti ni kulturnika pri nas, za katerega ne bi stalno blebetanje o spremembah pomenilo le: dajte mi več denarja in pustite vse tako, kot je.

Bil sem star 25, recimo, in obtoževali so me, da sem amerikaniziran, ker bi rad nekaj spreminjal. Četrt stoletja pozneje sem še vedno tuji plačanec, za katerim stojijo “interesi po monopolu globalnih industrij razvedrila” (okrožnica KOKS, 2013) in tako dalje. Tolažilo bi me le, če bi lahko hodil v garažo gledat najdražjega porscheja, ampak nimam garaže. In v tega četrt stoletja se seveda v kulturniškem sistemu ni prav nič spremenilo.

Kako prestrašena mora biti slovenska tiha večina pred vsako spremembo! Razumem, da se nekdo ustraši spremembe kulturne politike, ampak barvanja stare ograje?

(…)

Tisti, ki so ob županskih volitvah šli volit proti “Bosancu” in v strahu pred skrajnim islamizmom, lahko odhod dr. Pašića in njegove družine pojmujejo kot veliko zmago v vojni proti terorju. In v nekem majhnem bifeju bi nekdo rad častil rundo, ampak nima denarja, ker že dve desetletji čaka na boljše čase, ki mu jih bodo zrihtali drugi.

Jesenice so si oddahnile, nevarnost šeriatskega prava je minila, nemoteno lahko propadajo dalje.

Šeriatsko pravo na Jesenicah – Miha Mazzini, Planet Siol 

***

Za konec objavljamo še kratki ironični sestavek Petra Leitharta v reviji First Things, v katerem feministično kritiko biblijske zgodbe o stvarjenju človeka, ki naj bi bi izražala in spodbujala diskriminacijo do žensk, zavrže z analogijo z arijansko zmoto:

Arians say that the Son isn’t eternal God, but a high-level creature.

There is a twofold assumption behind Arianism: First, that the Absolute must be un-related. Arelated Absolute becomes relative to the one to whom it is related. Trinitarian theology rejected this premise and followed Scripture in affirming an eternal, absolute communion of related Persons.

Second, that whatever is second is subordinate. Since the Son comes from the Father, He must be lesser than the Father. Trinitarian theology rejected this premise too: The Second Person is equal to, indeed homoousios, with the First. In fact, the glory of the Father depends on His being Father, that is, on His having a Son; the glory of the First Person as Person depends on the Second.

Feminists reject the Genesis account of creation as misogynist, but they do so only because they have assumed that to be second is to be subordinate. Whereas Trinitarian theology denies the premise. Eve comes second, not as lesser but as the glory of Adam; Eve is the woman without whom the man is “not good.”

Feminism is gender Arianism.

Advertisements

Prosimo, upoštevajte, da so komentarji namenjeni civizirani izmenjavi mnenj

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s