April 30, 2014
My English dictionary reads: “High personal standards of what is right and what is wrong used as a guide to behaviour”.
“A guide to behaviour”? How many among the world’s people follow this norm? If we analyse those people who live around us, we may find ourselves lost in thoughts because they may not follow principles in most cases. Is this a consequence of modern life? Or have we forgotten the teachings we inherited from our ancestors?
If we turn our eyes to politicians, then something worse is happening. Corruption has invaded our political ambit, and there seems to be a political trait that those involved commit very important crimes with briberies galore. Briberies that reach astronomical figures.
I remember my young years that there was a saying among the population – saying that I believe is still there – that one did not need more than one month to become rich in politics. That keeps being so nowadays sixty years afterwards.
Politicians in my country hold legislative immunity. They can only be judged by the High Court, something that does not happen anywhere else in the world. I can see that in many civilised countries – those in the so-called West – a politician is bound to step down for any break of an ethical principle. I have seen politicians resign for just lying, something that even happened to a President of the USA.
The ruling party here made pledges in its electoral campaign which it did not comply with once elected. And these were not minor promises as they affected the general welfare of the population and condemned people in general to the lowest poverty indexes we ever had in this country, the number of people on the dole queue reaching six million. If we multiply this number by the average components of each family, the figure we get becomes really spectacular.
But the rich – you know, those whose role in corruption is the most important – are now richer and more powerful.
When are the people in Spain going to awake? I do not dare to say…
February 16, 2008
We live in our homes as we wish to. We place our furniture as we deem will be more confortable for us to go about our home. We get up in the morning and go to bed in the evening at the times our physical needs often require us. We believe or do not believe in a God or in many gods. We eat what we have been taught to eat and use our discernment for those meals that may not be advisable to eat. And how we must educate our children.
If we ever go to our neighbour’s home we find that they are acting as we do, although they may have strong differences in their perception of what comfortability is, what their God or gods should be, at what time they must get up or to bed, what their meals should be and how they educate their children.
So far I cannot see any problem. I let my neighbour live and he lets me live. No problem.
Then, why this upsurge of racism (I don’t believe it is racism), bigotry, or is it a sense of self-defence, with regards to the new-arrivals?
When we read in or listen to the communication media that an individual of our nationality commits a crime, slays a person or does something which is contrary to our way of thinking, to our sense of ethics, we are confident that the law will take care of him/her, and forget about the case just to find a new one on next day’s newsreels. Which we of course forget again as soon as we leave the paper aside or turn off the radio/tv.
But this does not happen with foreigners, with immigrants. If these immigrants dared to behave as those who were born in the same circumstances as we were do, then we do not forget. We do not pardon, we use our sense of self-defence to demand that they be expelled from our country, from our home. And our attitude also varies depending on where these immigrants come from, if they have our sympathy or not.
Of late we have been hearing, we have been warned against the Islamic terrorism, and we have immediately categorised not the term terrorism – which we may have been suffering in our own countries for a long time b y the hand of our co-nationals – no, we categorise the term “Islamic”. Is this religious bigotry or is it self-defence against a religion which is not the one we are used to living with? Are some interested parties trying that we consider the term “Islamic” as the fundamental part of the whole expression?
Why do we not consider the term terrorism as the essential question here?
I have many Muslim friends with whom I have no problems whatsoever. They are religious people, I am not religious, they respect me I respect them and love them as they do me. I have many Basque friends on the same friendship terms I have with my Muslim ones.
Spain has suffered for a long time now the plague of the “Basque” terrorism, as one time the British suffered the IRA terrorism. We have not asked the expulsion of the Basques from the Spanish territory and I am sure the British did not ask for expulsion of all the Irish people from the UK. Why then this different feeling towards Muslims?
Centuries ago the Jews were expelled from some European countries, among them Spain, for reasons which were not sufficiently clarified by historians, but that researches attribute to hatred, to religious bigotry, because the Jews were a part of our communities with special abilities in the economic sector. I wonder whether what we witness today regarding the Muslims is not a similar situation. I must draw your attention here to the fact that when the Arab domination in Spain, the three religions : Islam, Judaism, Christianity; had no problems of coexistence., as we see there are no problems of coexistence with the Jewish community in Iran and elsewhere in the world, except in those countries where the presence of Israel is more felt. I must say, notwithstanding, that a growing anti-Jew feeling here is being noticed after the problems in Palestine.
In my opinion the main cause of the resentment of our populations regarding aliens is not something that can be called racism or bigotry. It is a feeling of self-defence which our authorities have not been brave enough to ease up by applying the Law with all its consequences. Those of any religion or race who live in our countries must respect the Law as we do and must get the punishment the Law metes out in all cases it contemplates.
It will, I have no doubt, comfort us and make us forget those offenders as soon as they are tried and imprisoned as they deserve under the Law.
If we see that the Law defends us, then why still sustain a feeling of self-defence?
I may be wrong, though.
January 24, 2008
I have been reading a novel by a celebrated British author and one phrase caught my attention: ” …, most guilt is irrational.”
Rational beings, among whom humans find themselves, in the present days receive an education, are taught to discern which is good and which is bad, which is honest and which is dishonest. This education started in the early years of our lives set a code of conduct for the rest of it, a code of conduct that, depending on how ingrained it is in our consciences, serve us to be admitted in the folds of our societies. Fortunately much of this code contents have been erased, modified or perfected to make this world of ours a more livable, nicer place – not always achieved as we all know.
Do we have a sense of guilt, as we have those of sight, taste, hearing, touch and smell, to which the sixth sense has been added although I believe this extra sense is a combination of the other five.
Is there really the likelihood of having irrational guilt? In my opinion there is not. Guilt is a term that defines admission of having done something badly or wrongly and be repentant for it, except in the cases where the guilt is not admitted by the individual but is considered to be it by others. In this connection Justice has much to say.
But coming back to the beginning of this post, I wonder why the author made this assertion and I am wondering whether any of the possible readers of this post has something to say, if really “most guilt is irrational”, or there may be irrational guilt to some degree in the human being.
October 26, 2007
Who or what is Satan? Religions have been very concerned about this stereotype of evil, in such a way that they have come to consider it – don’t call me profane, please – at the same level they consider God. Well, if not at the same level at least at the same level in nether regions of spiritualism, an antagonistic force to God’s.
Religions have considered Satan the antithesis of everything godly because they have found they had to have an entity whom to blame for what allegedly is anti-God attitudes, something so imposing that the human beings should be careful not to be drawn by in their way towards God.
Actions and reactions.
In my opinion God and Demon have been meant to be two components of our spiritual being. The one against the other has been exploited for centuries by those who have also exploited us to achieve their goals in our world. Why have they been used almost in all cases when our attitudes have been worth of spiritual study?
If we dare to fall in the Demon’s hands, then we will be entirely against God. But if we reflect on these doctrines we were taught in our early years, we may arrive at the conclusion that the Demon- Satan – was “instituted” to make us fear his influence and definitely dedicate ourselves to the God’s cause.
Does Satan exist? Does God exist?
Well perhaps if we ponder over the two concepts we may conclude they both exist, at least spiritually. I mean inside our spirits, inside our innermost beings. Not that I am being influenced by religions, but because I am convinced that ethics or morals have a remotest origin derived from the successive centuries of coexistence we, mortal beings, have been given to live.
That this was imbued into our minds by a God is something nobody can prove, but along the years many have tried to convince us that God exists and the Devil exists.
It is very simple: If we want to obtain God’s approval then we must reject Satan’s influence.