Sunday, February 6, 2011

What Household Goods Can Be Used As Lubricant

THE BLACK HOLE - Paul Morazzi


He caused a sensation the news of the child outside the EU to which the teachers, giving up the meal, they offered their good meals so that he could use the table as all other kindergarten children, suffering the censorship and the threat of disciplinary action by the Mayor of Fossalta di Piave in Venice.
The news itself is what should be ashamed of the conscience of every citizen, why should I say read the newspapers every day gives us a social and moral debacle that, apart from the citizens of the various communities affected by the individual episodes, now no longer of interest to anyone, through more general indifference.
When I was a kid in the sixties, I remember that in Milan Cimino's a jeweler brothers killed during a robbery. A heinous crime at the time occupied for days on the front pages of newspapers in general outrage and a national uprising. A shocked public opinion on a fact considered so outrageous that today, in the light of day, certainly leads to a profound reflection. To read the press today, the daily list of victims of facts just as disgusting, is now relegated only to the various sidebars of the press, not causing any more emotion in the soul collective.
A community already engaged in a kind of daily survival, and along the path is constantly distracted by the news that are served up in a sort of media bombardment that makes perfect sense of the social model in which we live but leaves largely predict the black hole in which we are inserting.
Already, the black hole. Not the ozone layer or that of the galaxies that surround us, but the chasm before us and in which in some respects we are already slipping.
E 'surprising to hear every sacred day, our politics bounce any and all liability on the facts and determine our daily lives, an endless list of things that had to be made and which were not made or could be done differently, proclamations and miserable behavior of stopgap measures designed to address only the newspaper but not giving any sense of perspective in relation to the social model that we imagine for the next few years, the future society that welcomes our children.
Some will say that the reflections are a little, the demagogy now is a way of life in a society as ours, which has lost the sense of justice, individual responsibility.
And how can we prove him right, it shows the gradual disgust and general disinterest in politics generated by a sense of helplessness in the face of a ruling class that beyond its actual capacity is lacking, perhaps the most important thing, common sense.
is common sense, what we were taught in school, one of the good father, that if in the community nucleus of society, the family was supposed to represent a set of guidelines for behavior and responsibility than the protection of their life loved ones, and that compared to a whole community would have to give a quite social model with the values \u200b\u200bof coexistence that already in itself, probably would have saved us much trouble and their suffering.
It 's true, globalization and the acceleration unexpected complexity of social dynamics is difficult to address immediately.
But it is equally true that a society founded on solid and shared moral values, the pillars of their cohabitation would have been easy game to engage in the renewal of its structures, because its ruling class, imbued with these values, would in whole proceeded to imagine, to design a model of social development in the medium term at least, able to respond today, compared to the need for social and economic program that accompanies orderly development of all its functions in the global context.
Instead, the moral drift in which, unfortunately we live in pessimism induces more total, causing widespread anger at the injustice and unequal situations that daily afflict a large part of society for behavior and the facts of our class manager.
But this ruling class, for a large share, is part of our collective imagination for at least a quarter of a century if not beyond, and is the same ruling class that requires us to decide today largely due to the obvious inability of the same respect to the trust placed in all these years by the electoral vote.
E 'most bizarre it today, all of his time commitments to devise, in Machiavellian mental ruminations, the most effective way to bring down a political opponent, the final round. The uncomfortable seconds that this Machiavellian theory, catalyst, should be the cause of all crimes.
much more interest and perhaps serve the common good, a kind of self-criticism, aiming at a real assumption of its responsibilities towards the society's trust.
It certainly is not helpful to list the alleged crimes, knowing that desire to exercise our memory, not enough to categorize the infinite Treccani galaxy of wastefulness, embezzlement crimes, robberies, and so certainly due to a part of this caste, which in addition to having eaten the common good has left us, in the hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the unification of Italy, a sad legacy.
Perhaps our problem, that of the Italians is that we utilize the memory only when it suits us because it is true that individualism louder today cannibalized other resources both intimate and social, it is true that the flock needs to properly follow the pastor of a large group of dogs, barking in a disorderly fashion, always returns the set on the predetermined path and the poor animals that while they are lost, end up easy prey for unpredictable situations.
In fact, having assimilated the good example given to us by our elites, we are always ready to assume the role of bearers of truth, absolute and which does not allow, and then continue with the demonization of opponents and with the "ah but I was not there" or ... .. "But ruled them .." forgetting that as in the more sad everyday when you buy a company if they buy it claims but also the debt.
ignorance Ergo ... no ... is allowed for ordinary citizens. And the politicians?
But back to the initial report, saying that if you do not acknowledge the fact that as reported by the press is the perfect image of my previous thoughts?
Specifically, in the asylum while in this case erupted for good meals whose market value is about 20 euro a month, sparking the wrath of a prissy .. League's local mayor, inflexible system of moralizing, the other at the same time the Provincial League dissociated from the investigation that has engulfed the province of Venice, in the municipality in question belongs, the cry "but ruled them ..."
Only two considerations:
If the City gives a good meal for a teacher on duty is clear that the cost of that falls to the City. However, the meal to consume the teacher or vice versa for reasons of solidarity and humanity no doubt this meal is consumed by a child, where is the loss of revenue?
Always a meal it is.
And
The league has always been a flag of his ability to be vigilant guardian of the controller and proper functioning of the institutions on the territory, not hesitating to denounce and ride every battle for justice.
But how is it that in the Province, where the league is certainly not ruled but was present with his representatives, could that happen?
and common sense. What then ....
There was good sense to slip into a black hole for 20 € in front of hundreds of thousands not to mention millions of euro every day we discover to be squandered with incredible lightness of the political class that governs us when, in many cases and not least concerning the province of Venice, do not end directly into the pockets of some officials and political cunning?
And perhaps it was swallowed up in this that I called a black hole, also the dignity of those politicians, many, over the years have truly dedicated their time and their ability to govern in an honest manner, with good sense of the father family?

Friday, February 4, 2011

Funniest Way To Congratulate Someone

Secularism and religion. Reflections of a bishop. Conversation Bishop Giampaolo Crepaldi with Archbishop of Trieste on the collaboration between secular and Catholic. - Stefano Fontana


Excellency, first of all, what do you mean, you think "secular"?
"It seems today that the word has four meanings. First of all secular means "not a priest" and "non-religious." Who is not a priest nor a member of a religious congregation of monks or nuns or monks is said to lay. My mother and father were laymen. Secondly, it can be said to lay people who believe that the political dimension of religion has its own autonomy, but at the same time to benefit from the moral and spiritual resources of religion and even that needs it, otherwise the policy itself to become an absolute religious . In a third meaning secular means people today live and reason without regard to religion, in other words mean indifference to religion. Finally, today is also to secular anti-religious, ie those who fight the religion, do not let it make, does not allow her to tell her in public. "
Could establish a hierarchy between these meanings? In your opinion what would be the true secularism?
"The first definition is not a problem for anyone. Among the other three I would say that the most correct is the first (ie the second in that list), while the second and third are incorrect, first of all from the point of view of secularism. That is very secular forms of secularism. "
I understand that you support those who fight that religion is very secular, but because those who do not take this into account, it does not matter, it would be a truly secular?
"Because it's already a rule God from the public. Even if you do not fight openly, if I say that the organization of society must not take into account the least of the religious dimension, but must be indifferent and, for example, that you should remove the religious symbols, set a school education that disregards entirely from religion, which Bishop can not hear his voice in public and Catholics can not achieve a form of explicit presence in the company or something like that ... I say I am indifferent, while I made a choice instead of exclusion. "
Therefore, you can not take a position on the question of God?
"It is not possible. And he considered it possible that secularism would be a lie. Secularism is an exercise of reason and do not use deception. It can be set to build a world without God or a God can not set a third way. Set a world about God, however, does not mean being fundamentalist, it means acknowledging their autonomy to human affairs, but also see them in their limits and, therefore, in their structural need for an additional resources to be themselves. For the same reason set a world without God does not mean to set a neutral world. "
Yet today it is said that the question of God is after, if those places. But she says it is first, because nobody can escape.
"The question of God comes before all others and there is no one who does not place it. This is because when we know the reality as we know it now in need of funds, unable to explain the way down by herself. There, in that perception, c'a you an idea - even if very general - of God, which then takes us forever. The idea of \u200b\u200bGod is not added and then after we have processed all the others. The lay person is one who seeks the right to organize their lives, but never as an absolute reason and come to terms with prison, keeps open the question remains available to an additional sense that reason alone can not be, but which itself refers to it as we see a need for wholeness that can not by itself. "
In this sense, then, only those who remain open to God is secular.
"I really think that way and I'll give two examples. French President Sarcozy, in his famous speech at St. John Lateran in a few years ago, coined the term "positive secularism". He wanted to show what a secularism that expresses a positive attitude of openness toward religion. Pope Benedict XVI has shown to appreciate the expression and broke it used during his trip to France two years ago. The second example is the following: Joseph Ratzinger, in his famous speech made by the cardinal, had invited the laity to "live as if God were." Here again the theme of positive religion. It would be very little doubt stay secular: and if God exists? The believer whose faith is never completely free from compete with disbelief, asking this of the secular intellectual honesty: he never stopped living to compete with the secular question: are we really sure that God does not exist? ".
And if a layman does not?
"I think that is more secular then. Become a dogmatic and intolerant would be led by a distaste for the religion which would render him unable to objectively see the meaning, would trade for cialtronesca superstition. In fact the fight, of course, in the name of secularism, but it would be a new religion dell'antireligione. There are many today, to lay intolerant. "
In a letter to his diocese for the Children of the feast of St. Nicholas, among other things, she said that children who live in a family of married parents are lucky. For this he was criticized for discriminating against both children and families. I consider examples of intolerant secularism?
"Secularism is the tolerance that allows the Church to express itself according to its own logic and not to say things that correspond to other logics. The Christian faith says that marriage is not just a contract express or implied, but the sacramental construction of a new reality that will live in so far as to accept to be vivified by the Lord. This is not contradicted by the fact that, unfortunately, many marriages fail in the Church humanely, nor an obligation to treat all forms of "family". I do not think it is tolerant to criticize the bishop because he says that the true model of Christian family is brought by God Himself in the Holy Family of Nazareth, lived and taught by the Lord Jesus Neither can you stop to say that to be born in such a family where the love of spouses is based in God's love for us and us to God, is a great fortune. I add here something more: this should be considered a right of every child. Who has experienced it knows that a great fortune. To say then that this would be the Bishop of discrimination is almost laughable: the love of the Church is open to all, but does not release to say how things are. "
Trieste is proud of its secular tradition. It's good?
"It's good because Secularism means the opening coexistence, mutual acceptance, friendly dialogue and not bias, absence of forms of fundamentalism. But this secularism is wrong when someone gives another meaning: that the truth does not exist, that the Church must preach Jesus Christ, considering that the Truth and Life, that the Church must evangelize and pray that the conversions increase, to criticize the ad, calling proselytism. Wrong or when someone wants to muzzle the bishop, or - which is worse - to tell the bishop what the world wants to hear, namely that everything is okay. All is not well: there are now forms of the family set that do not represent the true good of children and making them suffer, you knock on the right and left poor behind them, and downloading on the irresponsibility of adults. Secularism is not true that prevented the bishop saying these things. "
The Church urges its faithful obedience, not all men. Church calls for respect to others, thinking to perform a service to man and to express the spiritual and moral resources for the good of society. Get more than not asking privileges. Because nothing and no one can take her to the Church a "claim".
Which claim?
"The claim to bring a response to the real needs of man. Secularism must respect this above all: that the Church has the opportunity to fully express its message of salvation, which concerns the entire human life, thinking that by so doing, it performs a service to the human person. Who criticizes me because I support that living in a Christian home, enlivened by Christ himself and by his Spirit, is a great chance, that the Church did not agree with his message can claim to make life more human. But this intolerance against the Church can never accept. "
Source: International Observatory Cardinal Van Thuan on Catholic Social Teaching