O noua forma de lupta de clasa?!

Inainte de a trece efectiv la subiect as dori sa spun doua lucruri... In primul rand, cum vi se pare o America cuprinsa de un fior mistic? Parca nu se potriveste cu aceasta tara care are un alt specific, de exemplu: piete libere, business, spirit intreprinzator... Eu, spre exemplu, cand spun SUA ma gandesc mai degraba la businessmen decat la mistici... Si cu toate acestea iata ca SUA e cuprinsa de un fior mistic, atat crestin cat si musulman. Citeam aici un lucru interesant si anume: 

"Pew found that nearly half of Tea Party supporters (46%) had not heard of or did not have an opinion about "the conservative Christian movement sometimes known as the religious right," while only 42% said they agree with the conservative Christian movement. They concluded then, with a more nuanced finding than that of PRRI: “most people who agree with the religious right also support the Tea Party. But support for the Tea Party is not synonymous with support for the religious right” (Clement and Green 2011). Pew also found that “Tea Party supporters closely resemble Republican voters as a whole on [social] issues” (Clement and Green 2011)."

Despre Christian right sau religious right - aici. De unde se poate vedea ca preocuparile religioase sunt importante, ceea ce nu e tocmai rau. Insa problema e daca nu cumva in zilele noastre acest interes fata de religie nu e unul mult mai mare decat de obicei...

In al doilea rand, dupa parerea mea, termeni de genul "frati si surori musulmani" sau "Fratia musulmana" nu sunt caracteristici Islamului si ei le-au copiat din Crestinism, dupa formula crestina: "frati si surori in Domnul". Insa in crestinism aceasta formula are un sens destul de clar. Daca ne referim la un Tata al nostru, ca in Rugaciunea Domneasca, atunci am putea spune ca suntem cu totii frati pentru ca El ne-a creat pe noi toti. Totusi, sensul crestin al expresiei "frati si surori in Domnul" e altul si anume ca noi toti crestinii ne impartasim (sau ar trebui s-o facem) cu Sfantul Trup si Sange al Mantuitorului nostru Iisus Hristos. In acest fel suntem "frati si surori in Domnul", adica in Hristos. Insusi termenul, cu sensul sau, inclusiv cel simbolic, de fratietate sau fraternitate, are o descendenta crestina. La musulmani nu exista notiunea de "frati si surori", decat daca, desigur, provin din aceeasi parinti sau au macar un parinte comun. In Islam nu exista notiunea de fraternitate decat doar daca aceasta a fost copiata cumva din Crestinism si apoi, intr-un fel sau altul, adaptata la preceptele islamice. 
Acestea fiind zise, trecem la cazul pe care vroiam sa-l analizez:

Mohammed Hamzah Khan

In presa noastra stirea a fost una scurta, cum apare de pilda in acest articol din Romania Libera. Insa NBC Chicago - aici si CNN -aici, au relatat mai pe larg. Si voi cita, de exemplu, din articolul de pe CNN:

" Letter to family
He had reportedly explained his reasons for attempting the journey in a three-page letter he left for his family in the bedroom he shared with a sibling in Bolingbrook.

He invited his family to join him in the "Islamic State" -- the name ISIS uses to refer to itself -- but warned them not to tell anyone about his travel plans, according to a criminal complaint.

Khan wrote that there is an obligation to "migrate" to territory controlled by ISIS, which has used bloodthirsty tactics to seize control of large areas of Syria and Iraq.

"We are all witness that the Western societies are getting more immoral day by day," Khan wrote in the letter, according to the complaint. "I do not want my kids being exposed to filth like this."

He said he couldn't bear the thought of his taxes in the United States, which along with other countries is carrying out airstrikes against ISIS, being used to kill his "Muslim brothers and sisters."

Ceea ce observam in aceasta scrisoare este tema clasica a Stangii: decandenta societatii Occidentale, o societate imorala, "in putrefactie", cum s-ar fi spus la noi in anii '50-'60. Deci americanul care trece la Islam vede in asta o lupta impotriva unei societati nedrepte, n-are nicio legatura cu religia, cu Islamul. Cei care trec la Islam fac parte, banuiesc, din electoratul D-lui. Obama si al Partidului Democrat si, banuiesc din nou, marea lor majoritate sunt negri sau au o culoare a pielii ceva mai inchisa la culoare. Astfel de oameni, in general vorbind, sunt si mai prost platiti in SUA, altfel nu s-ar explica vehementa lor impotriva sistemului american, caci despre asta e vorba: atacarea sistemului american. Iar grija fata de copii, deoarece, spune, "nu doreste ca si copiii lui sa fie expusi la un gunoi ca acesta", adica precum aceasta societate nedreapta, imorala, corupta, murdara, intr-un cuvant societatea capitalista, este o tema predilecta a Stangii. 
De observat ca daca in trecut era o lupta ideologica, dusa chiar pe plan mondial, desigur, intre Stanga si Dreapta -  Comunismul respectiv Capitalismul - care s-a terminat cu victoria Dreptei, in zilele noastre conflictul imbraca haine religioase. Adica un conflict intre Islam si Crestinatate. E acelasi conflict intre Stanga si Dreapta, cel de pe vremuri. Adica Islamul, care sufera de saracie, pe de o parte, si Crestinatatea bogata, pe de alta parte. Acest baiat de 19 ani nu vrea ca taxele si impozitele pe care le plateste sa fie folosite pentru "uciderea fratilor si surorilor musulmani". De unde iarasi vedem o tema draga Stangii: Capitalismul rapace, care, in ultima instanta, ucide. De fapt, aici nu e vorba de Islam, acesta e doar o haina, cum spuneam, ci de cu totul altceva. E vorba de Neocomunism, care s-a dezvoltat sub Obama si care nu e impiedicat, cel putin acum, sa se dezvolte. Problema moralitatii unui astfel de Islam - adica al Neocomunismului - e una marxista pentru ca se bazeaza in principal pe teoria intrarii in putrefactie a imperialismului vestic, mai ales american. Adica e vorba de ascutirea contradictiilor in societate, intre cei bogati, crestinii, si cei chipurile exploatati de acestia: musulmanii. In felul asta musulmanii au motiv de lupta. Si industria de armament piata de desfacere! 

Bineinteles, recomand citirea integrala si in original a tuturor articolelor.

Dezbatere pe tema asasinatelor din motive politice in SUA si discurs pentru toleranta

Un articol foarte interesant pe care l-am citit pe site-ul Slate.com:

Are Assassins More Likely To Target Liberals?

It's complicated.
By Brian Palmer

Iata ce arata printre altele:

"Historically, have American politicians on the left side of the spectrum suffered more attacks than their right-leaning colleagues?


Yes, but don't jump to any conclusions. Eleven U.S. presidents have been targeted for assassination, and eight of them—a clear majority—could be described as left-of-center. But that statistic is meaningless, because only Abraham Lincoln was killed by a right-winger with political motives. (Neither Lincoln nor his assassin, John Wilkes Booth, would likely have used the term right or left to describe their politics, but the labels seem fair in retrospect.) Some would-be assassins were motivated by personal revenge, like the delusional men who tried to kill James A. Garfield and Andrew Jackson (who's claimed by both the left and the right)."

Iata si un alt articol:

From Texas to Arizona


How Obama can talk about tolerance without trivializing a tragedy.

By John Dickerson

"But Obama will also have to talk about tolerance. And he will have to find a way to talk about the need to civilize our debate when he is aligned with only one side in that debate.


Even addressing the idea of tolerance is going to close some ears. Conservatives will hear an accusation even if he says there is no connection between the shooter and Tea Party rhetoric. If there's no connection, why are you bringing it up—at a memorial service, of all places? Liberals who hear the president call out his own side will be irritated by the false equivalence. How can you compare us in any way to those people who say you hold office illegally?

The solution may be to focus not on the political conversation that existed before the shooting but on the one that's come out of it. This allows the president to avoid the question of what motivated the shooter but does not limit his ability to talk about the problems with our political culture. He has fresh evidence, minted by the hour, of the problems of our political conversation."

Interesant ce spune si in final:

"All the president has to do to restore a little balance to this debate is talk about the people whose lives it did not define. In doing so, he will make the case for tolerance far better than any words directly aimed at the topic."

In acest caz interesanta este si pozitia Gruparii Tea Party:

Tea Party Group Blames 'Leftist' for Giffords Shooting

Iata ce se arata, printre altele:

"Showing no sign of tamping down on divisive political rhetoric in the wake of the shooting of 20 people that left six dead in Tuscon Saturday, the Tea Party Nation group e-mailed its members Sunday warning them they would be called upon to fight leftists in the days ahead and defend their movement.


TPN founder Judson Phillips, in an article linked off the e-mail "The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and the left's attack on the Tea Party movement," described the shooter as "a leftist lunatic" and Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik as a "leftist sheriff" who "was one of the first to start in on the liberal attack." Phillips urged tea party supporters to blame liberals for the attack on centrist Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who was shot through the head and is now fighting for her life, as a means of defending the tea party movement's recent electoral gains."

dar si:

"Other tea party groups took a less combative tone. Tea Party Express Chairwoman Amy Kremer said Saturday her group was "shocked and saddened" by the "terrible tragedy."


"These heinous crimes have no place in America, and they are especially grievous when committed against our elected officials. Spirited debate is desirable in our country, but it only should be the clash of ideas," Kremer said in a statement published by the New York Times. "An attack on anyone for political purposes, if that was a factor in this shooting, is an attack on the democratic process. We join with everyone in vociferously condemning it.""

Un articol interesant si in The Washington Post:

In Wednesday speech in Arizona, Obama is seeking right tone

by Anne E. Kornblut and Scott Wilson

In final se arata:

"But there are also reasons for a president to pause before weighing in at such a moment. Investigators are still gathering evidence about the shooter's motives. Before discussing the attack in the context of inciting political rhetoric, the proliferation of guns, or a lack of care for the mentally ill, Jamieson said, Obama should collect as much information as possible about what happened and why.

Reagan delivered his moving remarks about the Challenger explosion only hours after it occurred, largely because what happened was clear.


Clinton, by contrast, waited four days before traveling to Oklahoma City to deliver remarks at a prayer service for the victims. Until then, he participated in other commemorative events."

 Iata ce spune Slate Magazine despre declaratiile facute de Sarah Palin:

Palin Fails the Test

Sarah Palin's response to the Tucson shooting is defensive, illogical, distracting—and late.
By John Dickerson

Si aici declaratia facuta de Sarah Palin pe Facebook.

Iar despre vizita lui Obama la Tucson aflam din The Washington Post:

Obama visits surviving victims in Tucson, plans to speak at memorial service
by Anne E. Kornblut, Philip Rucker and Dana Hedgpeth

Articole demne de toata atentia. Le recomand a fi citite!