What we are seeing is the collapse of the world order as we have known it since World War II

Russia’s Moves, Terrorism Fuel Talk of War in Europe

by Nolan Peterson

Whether referring to Russian aggression in the east or to the threat of Islamist terrorism in the West, Europe’s political, media, and religious elite are increasingly using the word “war” to describe the Continent’s security challenges.

The day after the July 14 terror attack in Nice, in which a man drove a large truck into a crowd, killing 84, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said France was at war, “both abroad and on our soil.”

“For years, we have lived, fundamentally, with a kind of insouciance, as though war could not catch up with us, as though history was not tragic,” Valls said. “But war is here, and it is different from the ones that we knew in the 20th century.”

Less than two weeks later, Pope Francis echoed Valls’ remarks when he said the “world is at war.”

“The word we hear a lot is insecurity, but the real word is war,” the pope told reporters while commenting on the murder of a Catholic priest in Normandy by two Islamic State terrorists and a string of violent incidents across Germany.

Across Europe, the word “war” is increasingly being used to describe the Continent’s security challenges.

Some claim the myriad security challenges facing Europe indicate the Continent’s 7-decade-old experiment in guaranteeing peace through economic interdependence, collective defense, and multiculturalism is faltering.

“The current security architecture in Europe, which relied on both the Helsinki Final Act and the Paris Charter, has now collapsed,


...............

Read more: dailysignal.com

Sixties sensibility no longer seems so modern

Does the First Amendment Protect Warrior Religions?

By William Kilpatrick

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Psychological Seduction; Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and the forthcoming The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com

After every Islamic terrorist attack, whether in Europe or the U.S., people ask what can be done to prevent it from happening again. But when the obvious solutions are proposed, they are invariably met with the objection that “you can’t do that,” or “that’s unconstitutional,” or words to that effect.

Some of the obvious solutions are to close radical mosques and radical Islamic schools, to monitor suspected mosques, to deport radical imams, and, of course, to restrict Muslim immigration or ban it altogether. If you dare to say such things, however, it quickly becomes apparent that—for many, at least—only politically correct solutions are acceptable. The trouble is, the politically correct crowd doesn’t have any solutions. In the memorable words of French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, “France is going to have to live with terrorism.”

Catholics are frequently in the forefront of those who object to these “drastic” measures for preventing terrorism in the West. Pope Francis, for example, has made generosity to refugees and immigrants a hallmark of his papacy. Christians, he has reminded us on several occasions, should build bridges, not walls. Others, Catholics among them, have objected that restrictions on Islamic immigration would violate the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution—as would surveillance of mosques and Islamic societies.

Catholics are understandably touchy about the subject of religious liberty. But concerns over Christians being forced to bake cakes for same-sex weddings shouldn’t be allowed to overshadow some other basic questions about religious liberty.

One of the questions is this: does a religion that doesn’t believe in religious freedom for others qualify for First Amendment protection? Another, related question might be framed as follows: Is a religion that calls for the subjugation of other religions entitled to the “free exercise” of that mandate? The underlying issue, of course, is whether or not Islam really qualifies as a religion. As any number of authorities have pointed out, Islam is a hybrid—part religion and part a geo-political movement bent on world domination.

The “world domination” bit, by the way, is not confined to the fevered imaginations of right-wing fanatics. In a recent interview with Religion New Service, Cardinal Raymond Burke said “there’s no question that Islam wants to govern the world.” “Islam,” he continued, “is a religion that, according to its own interpretation, must also become the State.”

Here’s what I had to say about the matter four years ago:

Does this [the 1st Amendment] make the exercise of religion an absolute right to do anything in the name of religion? Should the free-exercise clause be extended to protect suicide cults or virgin sacrifice? The First Amendment also prohibits the establishment of a state religion, but one of the main purpose of Islam is to establish itself as the state religion. It can be argued that Islam’s raison d’etre is to be the established religion in every nation. Hence, another question must be asked: does the First Amendment protect its own abolishment?

Cardinal Burke is a canon lawyer—a profession that requires one to choose words carefully. Hence, when he talks about Islam becoming the State, he should be taken seriously. According to him, “when they [Muslims] become a majority in any country then they have the religious obligation to govern that country.” As we have seen, however, long before Muslims become a majority they begin demanding that their fellow citizens comply with sharia laws regarding diet, dress, and blasphemy. Allowing Muslims the full and free exercise of their faith is tantamount to restricting the freedom of others. Or, as Dutch MP Geert Wilders likes to say, “more Islam” means “more intolerance” for everyone else.

Wilders is referring to the consequences that follow upon the mass migration of Muslims into Europe. Although his was once a lonely voice, numerous polls show that the majority of Europeans now believe along with him that Islam does not belong in Europe. Pope Francis, on the other hand, has been in the habit of chiding Christians for their opposition to accepting more Muslim immigrants. He recently went so far as to warn them that they will have to answer to Christ at the Last Judgment because he (in the guise of the migrant) was homeless, and they did not take him in.


...............


Read more: www.crisismagazine.com

LGBT advocacy groups also are involved in an array of lawsuits they believe could have a major impact

A Look Inside 4 Important Goals of the LGBT Movement
by Kelsey Harkness


PHILADELPHIA—Despite being proud of advances they’ve made during eight years under President Barack Obama, leaders of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender movement say they still have work to do.

“The future of the LGBT movement hinges largely on the outcome of this election,” Kevin Jennings, executive director of the Arcus Foundation, said at a global LGBT summit held in Philadelphia during the Democratic National Convention.

Jennings, issuing a warning to a mostly friendly audience, said there are “two very different visions for LGBT equality in the Republican and Democratic platforms.”

More than 25 prominent leaders of the national LGBT movement, including elected officials and other influential voices, gathered for the four-day event called the Equality Forum.

..............................

Here’s a breakdown of four of the LGBT movement’s specific strategies, as described at the Equality Forum.

1. Passing the Equality Act

Passing this federal legislation is perhaps the most important short-term goal. Wolfson, the former president of Freedom to Marry, called it “unfinished business.”

The Equality Act, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity among prohibited categories of discrimination.

According to one of the most influential LGBT advocacy groups, the Human Rights Campaign, the legislation would apply to areas of “employment, housing, access to public places, federal funding, credit, education, and jury service.”

Conservatives worry the measure undermines First Amendment rights to free speech and religious liberty.

They say it would limit the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, forcing private business owners to violate their religious beliefs about marriage and mandating that people be allowed into restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, and similar facilities based on their gender identity.

“The ‘Equality Act’ is a misnomer,” wrote Ryan T. Anderson, an expert on marriage and religious liberty at The Heritage Foundation, which is the parent organization of The Daily Signal. “The bill does not protect equality before the law, but unnecessarily and unjustly violates freedom by creating special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

>>> Read More: How the So-Called ‘Equality Act’ Threatens Religious Liberty

According to the Human Rights Campaign, more than 80 corporations have signed on in support of the measure, including Target, Facebook, American Airlines, and Apple. (See chart below.)

Esseks, of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that support was largely a result of the relationships the LGBT movement built with private businesses while working to legalize same-sex marriage.

Conservative groups such as 2nd Vote, which urges Americans to vote with their wallets and boycott companies that financially back measures such as the Equality Act, criticize the role of large corporations.

Robert Kuykendall, spokesman for 2nd Vote, said:


Big business is helping carry the water for the policy goals of Human Rights Campaign and other LGBT advocacy organizations that are leading a dangerous assault on religious liberty on multiple fronts. The alliance between the Human Rights Campaign and its corporate sponsors like Target and Bank of America is a principle driver of the LGBT political movement.

LGBT leaders appeared confident such corporations would continue working with them as allies and that, with a Democrat majority in Congress, they could pass the Equality Act with a few Republicans on board.

On the “Future of the Movement” panel July 28, 2016, in Philadelphia are, from left, Evan Wolfson, former president of Freedom to Marry; Kevin Jennings, executive director of the Arcus Foundation; Jay Brown, communications director for the Human Rights Campaign; and moderator Kevin Naff, editor and co-owner of the Washington Blade. (Photo: Kelsey Harkness/The Daily Signal)

2. Defeating State and Local Laws

The biggest threat LGBT leaders said they’re facing is what they call “anti-LGBT” legislation proposed by conservatives in state and local governments.

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on same-sex marriage, many people of faith concluded they needed laws to protect their conscience rights so that they can run businesses, adoption agencies, and charity organizations in accord with their deeply held religious beliefs.

Specifically, these state laws—which advocates call Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs) after the 1993 federal law—aim to protect from discrimination or punishment those who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, that sexual relations should be reserved for marriage, and that gender identity is based on biological sex.

Wolfson, who spent decades advocating same-sex marriage, didn’t pay much mind to those concerns.

“Religion is not the reason people are bigots,” he said. “It’s the excuse.”

With more than 200 such measures popping up last year, Equality Forum panelists said they were dealt a major challenge from opponents who they believe are trying to use religion as a reason to discriminate.

“We knew there was going to be a backlash, but the backlash was bigger than I thought it was going to be,” the ACLU’s Esseks said, speaking of the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision. “That’s an enormous onslaught of organized legislative activity coming at us.”

To defeat their opponents, LGBT groups plan to go state by state to strike down religious freedom measures and, instead, implement their own laws on sexual orientation and gender identity. They said they intend to do this until new federal law or court decisions negate that necessity.

“The national conversation around this is night and day different from where it was last fall,” Esseks said, expressing confidence the tide is shifting in their favor. “We finally got over being awkward and shy about talking about restrooms.”

3. Going to Court

Panelists said they have their eyes on an array of court cases that they believe could greatly affect the future of the LGBT movement’s agenda, including the Pennsylvania case in which a transgender woman is suing the outdoor recreation company Cabela’s, a former employer.

The employee, Kate Lynn Blatt, took the legal action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on sex, and the Americans With Disabilities Act, arguing Cabela’s did not provide reasonable accommodations for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

Blatt’s supervisor “called her a ‘he-she,’ a ‘lady-boy,’” and insisted Blatt, hired as a seasonal stocker, wear a name tag with the name James rather than Kate Lynn, Wu said.

“And then when it came to the question of which bathroom she should use, [the supervisor] wouldn’t allow her to use the women’s restroom in the store, and instead, suggested that maybe she should go to the Dunkin’ Donuts across the street,” Wu said.

“This is clear discrimination based on your transgender status,” he said.

GLAD is assisting in the case, Blatt v. Cabela’s Retail Inc. The case is important, Wu explained, because of a “first of its kind litigation strategy” with the potential of overturning exclusions for transgender individuals under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

“If we’re able to remove or overturn this exclusion, then we’ve just opened up really important protections for transgender people in public accommodations,” he said.

While LGBT leaders are eyeing other legal cases—many of them involving transgender Americans—some experts said they aren’t overly concerned with cases in which private business owners, citing religious beliefs, decline to provide wedding-related services. These include bakers, photographers, and florists.

“We’re doing very well in those cases,” Esseks said. “We’ve won almost all of them.”

And if one were to land before the Supreme Court? Esseks said:


Justice [Anthony] Kennedy says people are free to believe whatever they want to believe [and] that gives me significant hope the court will say that’s not what religious freedom looks like, what you’re asking for is a license to discriminate, and that’s not something we’ll constitutionalize.

4. Partnering With Black Lives Matter and Others

The LGBT leaders also said they are beginning to discuss how they can be more supportive of other minority rights groups, specifically Black Lives Matter.

Drawing a parallel to Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton’s declaration in 2011 that “gay rights are human rights,” Jennings, the executive director of the Arcus Foundation, said that “the rights of black people are gay rights, and the rights of gay people are black rights.”

“If we remain silent then we lose, in my mind, the ability to complain when we are the victims of similar treatment,” he said. “We would lose all credibility.”
But Wolfson said he hopes LGBT organizations take more of a back-seat approach, allowing groups such as Black Lives Matter to remain in the driver’s seat.

“[We] don’t plan to lead the entire effort on curbing gun violence, but to bring meaningful contribution and meaningful voice to action,” he said.

Leaders also expressed interest in supporting criminal justice reform, the feminist movement, access to abortion, and gun control.

Gun control should be of great concern to the transgender community, said Jay Brown, communications director for the Human Rights Campaign.

“It’s all too often that there’s another [transgender] murder and it’s all too often that it goes unnoticed.”

By helping other movements, Brown said, the LGBT community will help itself.

“When you broaden access for one group, you broaden access for everyone.”

...................

Read more: dailysignal.com

What are France’s mistakes, especially those of the elite media and intellectuals, and what is the nature of its malaise?

DOES FRENCH CULTURE HAVE A FUTURE?

by Pierre Manent

This interview of Pierre Manent, former director of studies at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris, was conducted by the newspaper Il Foglio in the wake of the ISIS murder of Fr. Jacques Hamel.

Il Foglio

What do you think and feel about the recent attack at a French church? No priest had been killed inodium fidei (out of hatred for the faith) since the Second World War.

Pierre Manent

Imagine this scene: a mid-week mass, an almost empty church, two parishioners, three nuns, a very old priest with a mild, fine face who is immolated at the foot of the altar on which he has just celebrated the memorial of Christ’s sacrifice. This heart-wrenching scene sheds light on the state of Christianity in Europe. The Catholic Church lives from the faith and zeal of a few, old and young. It is the object of hatred with two faces: the cold and hissing hatred, the contempt of the class that speaks and writes; and the murderous hatred of Muslim fanatics. The French as a human whole do not know what to do with the Church, what to think or what to say of it. The President of the Republic rushed in to express his sympathy for “Catholics,” but then immediately changed the subject, since he didn’t know what to say about Catholics or the Catholic Church. Only the mayor of the little worker’s town, a communist, knew to speak of “our priest.”

Il Foglio


France looks exhausted. … What are France’s mistakes, especially those of the elite media and intellectuals, and what is the nature of its malaise?

Pierre Manent


The French are exhausted, but they are first of all perplexed, lost. Things were not supposed to happen this way. … We had supposedly entered into the final stage of democracy where human rights would reign, ever more rights ever more rigorously observed. We had left behind the age of nations as well as that of religions, and we would henceforth be free individuals moving frictionless over the surface of the planet. … And now we see that religious affiliations and other collective attachments not only survive but return with a particular intensity. Everyone can see and feel this, but how can it be expressed when the only authorized language is that of individual rights? We have become supremely incapable of seeing what is right before our eyes. Meanwhile the ruling class, which is not a political but an ideological class, one that commands not what must be done but what must be said, goes on indefinitely about “values,” the “values of the republic,” the “values of democracy,” the “values of Europe.” This class has been largely discredited in the eyes of citizens, but it occupies all the positions of institutional responsibility, especially in the media, and nowhere does one find groups or individuals who give the impression of understanding what is happening or of being able to stand up to it. We have no more confidence in those who lead us than in ourselves. It is neither an excuse nor a consolation to say it, but the faults of the French are those of Europeans in general.

Il Foglio


Do you think Europe in some way brought this catastrophe on itself?

Pierre Manent


We invite catastrophe by falling for an ideological representation of the world such as the one that is ours today. We invite catastrophe by sincerely believing that the religious affiliation of a citizen has no political bearing or effect. We invite catastrophe by excluding from authorized debate on Turkey’s possible joining the European Union the fact that Turkey is a massively Muslim country. We invite catastrophe when we confuse the obligation to rescue a person who is drowning with that person’s right to become a citizen of our country. We invite catastrophe when, in the name of charity or mercy, we require old Christian nations to open their borders to all who wish to enter.


...............

Read more: www.firstthings.com

Before I was a Catholic, I was an atheist, and not an atheist who kept his opinions to himself...

Faith and Works in a Science Fictional Universe


BY JOHN C. WRIGHT



Few men have ever hated Christ as much as I have, before turning to love Him. 

Before I was a Catholic, I was an atheist, and not an atheist who kept his opinions to himself, but a vituperative, proselytizing, aggressive, evangelist of atheism who sought at every opportunity to spread the Bad News that God was dead and Christians were fools.

But there was one area sacrosanct from my proselytizing effort. I did not use my science fiction stories to preach nor promote my worldview. I thought then that the honor of a gentleman, not to mention the pride of workmanship every craftsman should embrace, made it unseemly to preach my worldview when I was being paid to entertain. To use stories to spread my atheist views would be to impose on my customers, who came to me for a rollicking good space opera filled with exploding planets and colliding galaxies and stunning space princesses and stalwart space heroes. To give them a syllogism when they came for a space war, or an editorial when they came for an apocalypse, would cheat them of their hard-earned science fiction-buying dollar. To give them anything of the current world and its current controversies when they wished for escape into the future would be to play my beloved patrons false.

For I was one of those readers who oft had bought a book expecting a science fiction speculation and instead was forced to endure some rant about the issues that once upon a time absorbed the shallow attention of the intelligentsia. Since most of my reading consisted of books written twenty years before my time, I discovered that the only thing more boring than reading about the controversies of the day was reading about controversies long dead and written entirely by people long ago proved wrong.

Naturally, it was with considerable pride at my own cunning that I hid my personal opinions and paid attention only to the Muse, by which I mean I followed the needs of drama and ignored the itch to preach. Unlike other writers, as a newspaperman, I had an editorial page on which to scratch that itch to preach my opinionated opinions to the world.

When the Internet first came into my life, I assumed there was some danger that left-wing readers of mine would discover my journal and hence my opinions on the current issues of the day, but I hoped that I would gain more readers than I would lose, so I was never reluctant to share more strongly held beliefs on any topic.

In October 2003, the very first of my novels, [easyazon_link asin=”0765336693″ locale=”US” new_window=”default” nofollow=”default” tag=”onep073-20″]The Golden Age[/easyazon_link], received its very first review. The reviewer excoriated the work, heaping every opprobrium on it, on the grounds that in the remote far future half a million years hence (which is when the story is set) the godlike beings who are our remotest descendants, commanding a technology which enables them to reorganize mind and matter and energy to any configuration at whim, did not seem at all concerned with environmentalism or racism or gender issues.

(I should mention that both race and sex were optional to the superbeings of this era, as was whether to have a physical body at all, and that death and extinction could be reversed, so that there were no endangered species and no non-artificial species.)

However, the more vexatious vehemence of the termagant reviewing the work was reserved for the climax. The fact that the hero won the heart of his estranged wife and had a second honeymoon was anathema to this particular critic. She did not criticize the plot, character development, word choice, or any other element of the craftsmanship. She took a personal detestation to me because I wrote about romance and marriage as if romance and marriage were good things. This particular critic hated love, romance, marriage, and all good things in life.

This was when it first was driven home to me that some readers were orcs — that is, beings to whom fair is foul and foul is fair — in terms so strong and plain that they could not be denied. There were people who claimed to be science fiction fans who had absolutely no interest in science fiction at all, but merely in the news of the day and in the long-dead abortive philosophy of the Victorian crackpot Karl Marx.

Then in August of 2009, I became the target of a Two Minutes Hate organized by an editor at a rival publishing house.

..........

Read more: www.onepeterfive.com

Le déclin du courage est peut-être le trait le plus saillant de l’Ouest aujourd’hui pour un observateur extérieur.

Force et violence dans la pensée chrétienne

par le père Louis-Marie de Blignières


Extraits d'un article du père Louis-Marie de Blignières, paru dans Sedes Sapientiæ n° 134 :


"[...] Alexandre Soljenitsyne, au début de son fameux Discours de Harvard, affirmait : « Le déclin du courage est peut-être le trait le plus saillant de l’Ouest aujourd’hui pour un observateur extérieur. [...] Faut-il rappeler que le déclin du courage a toujours été considéré comme le signe avant-coureur de la fin ? »

L’un des plus grands spécialistes d’Aristote au XXe siècle, le philosophe belge Marcel De Corte, soulignait, dans une étude magistrale, l’importance décisive de cette vertu dans le contexte actuel : « Le péché qui s’oppose le plus à la vertu de force se ramène à une forme quelconque de rébellion contre le bien commun, et celle-ci, en définitive, à l’exaltation du Moi et de son bien particulier. Si saint Thomas n’en parle pas, c’est que la société de son époque n’était pas rongée par l’égoïsme individuel et collectif [...]. La vertu de force et son application en tous domaines [...] revêt actuellement une importance [...] sans exemple, tant dans la résistance que dans l’attaque qui la caractérisent. » [...]


La force ou le courage est, selon la sagesse grecque, l’une des quatre vertus qui forment l’ossature de la vie humaine, une de ces vertus sur lesquelles s’appuient et tournent les autres, une vertu « cardinale ». Les auteurs inspirés et les penseurs chrétiens reçoivent et purifient cette conception, qui exprime un aspect de la nature même de l’homme, et la mettent sous l’influx de la foi et de la charité. [...]

Selon le droit naturel, la violence n’est donc pas nécessairement un « dévoiement de la vertu de force », comme on l’écrit parfois. L’injuste violence s’oppose certes chez celui qui l’inflige, non seulement à la prudence et à la justice, mais aussi (selon les cas concrets) à des vertus annexes à la vertu de force, comme la patience, la magnanimité ou la longanimité. Mais il y a, nous en parlerons plus loin, des cas d’exercice légitime de la violence. Si toute violence est toujours un mal « physique » pour celui qui la subit (car cela va contre sa nature ; pour l’homme, cela va contre sa volonté), tout exercice de la violence n’est pas un mal « moral » pour celui qui l’exerce, car cet exercice peut être conforme à la règle droite de la raison. [...]

Dans les milieux chrétiens, depuis une cinquantaine d’années, notamment chez nombre de prêtres et de prélats, on perd de vue cette donnée, et l’on a tendance à penser que toute coercition est opposée à la dignité de l’homme. Cette tendance découle, nous semble-t-il, d’une notion erronée de la dignité. C’est à bon droit que l’on rattache la dignité à la personne, mais on oublie souvent que la dignité de la personne – un sujet subsistant par soi dans une nature raisonnable – est d’agir selon la noblesse de sa nature. On peut déchoir de cette dignité par des actes opposés aux exigences de la nature humaine, notamment à cette dimension sociale et politique inscrite dans la nature humaine. Si un individu s’oppose au bien commun (qui est, en un sens, immanent à tous les biens propres), il déchoit par rapport à sa dignité d’animal politique, qui doit vivre de la raison et dans l’ordre de l’amour. Certes, un homme qui agit mal garde sa nature humaine, et donc la dignité d’être un sujet de l’espèce humaine. C’est pourquoi même le pire des malfaiteurs doit être traité comme un homme et non comme un bête. Il y a des traitements indignes dont il faut s’abstenir à son égard, et des droits (notamment dans son rapport à Dieu) qu’il faut toujours respecter. Mais, autant qu’il est en lui, il déroge par son agir à sa propre dignité : car l’agir de l’homme doit être conforme à la plus noble part de son essence. Lorsque l’on perd cela de vue, certaines questions deviennent vraiment inextricables. [...]


On dénombre classiquement trois cas où l’exercice de la violence peut être légitime : l’un concerne le rapport entre individus, le second celui de la puissance publique aux membres de la cité, le troisième les rapports entre cités. [...]


Le passage où Notre Seigneur affirme que « le royaume des cieux souffre violence et ce sont les violents qui l’emportent » (Mt 11, 12) a reçu diverses interprétations. L’une d’entre elles met en lumière le fait que tout exercice des vertus réclame l’exercice concomitant de la vertu de force, qui va, dans l’état concret de la nature déchue, contrarier certaines tendances et désirs, leur « faire violence ». Certes, lorsque c’est le sujet lui-même qui s’applique cette violence, c’est une « violence » dans un sens diminué : elle va contre une partie de l’homme (une passion désordonnée qui afflige l’une de ses facultés), mais non contre la plus noble partie de sa nature, à savoir l’intelligence qui comprend la nécessité de l’effort, et la volonté qui veut ce bien, conforme à la raison, de la mortification de la passion. [...]


Saint Thomas d’Aquin, lorsqu’il rencontre cette scène fameuse du soufflet du valet à Notre Seigneur, indique la portée de l’attitude du Sauveur et l’instruction à en tirer : « Il y a ici une question, parce que le Seigneur a prescrit à ses disciples : “Si quelqu’un te frappe sur la joue droite, présente-lui l’autre”. [...] L’Écriture Sainte doit être comprise telle que le Christ et les autres saints l’ont gardée. Or le Christ n’a pas présenté l’autre joue au serviteur, et Paul non plus. Il ne faut donc pas comprendre que le Christ avait ordonné que l’on tendît au sens littéral, matériellement, l’autre joue à celui qui en frappe une. Mais il faut comprendre que l’âme doit se préparer afin que, si cela était nécessaire, elle soit dans une disposition telle qu’elle ne s’émeuve pas contre celui qui frappe, mais soit prête à supporter quelque chose de semblable et même davantage. Et cela, le Seigneur l’a observé, lui qui a livré son corps à la mort. Ainsi la protestation du Seigneur fut utile à notre instruction. » [...]


La pensée de l’Aquinate et des théologiens de son époque, sur ce point, loin d’être émolliente, va jusqu’à affirmer qu’un juste exercice de la violence peut en certains cas constituer une œuvre de perfection :

La fonction militaire est susceptible d’être ordonnée au bien du prochain, et non pas au bien des particuliers uniquement, mais encore à la défense de tout l’État. [...] Le métier des armes peut aussi servir au maintien du culte divin. [...] Il est donc convenable d’instituer un ordre religieux pour la vie militaire, non certes en vue d’un intérêt temporel, mais pour la défense du culte divin et le salut public, ou encore la défense des pauvres et des opprimés.

On peut souligner en terminant que, si la force doit soutenir la justice jusqu’à l’emploi de la violence, elle doit s’allier à la prudence et refuser tout esprit de vengeance personnelle. Les combattants savent que le plus difficile est souvent de dominer sa propre violence désordonnée et de s’abstenir de toutes injustes représailles contre un ennemi vaincu. « La justice sans la miséricorde, c’est de la cruauté ; la miséricorde sans la justice aboutit à la dissolution. »

« Dès que nous entrons dans le problème de la violence exercée sur les autres, la conscience chrétienne entre dans un maquis de plantes épineuses de toutes espèces. J’ai parlé justement du rapport idéal entre les hommes, du rapport évangélique, autrement dit des rapports fondés uniquement sur la vérité et l’amour. Seulement il se trouve que ces rapports sont extrêmement difficiles, car la sainteté est rare, et même quand elle existe, elle n’entraîne pas nécessairement la réciprocité dans les rapports avec le prochain. Car les hommes, dans leur immense majorité, y compris les chrétiens, sont loin d’être uniquement dirigés par la vérité et par l’amour. »"


Source: lesalonbeige.blogs.com

Download document.pdf here: www.despierresquiprechent.org

Louis XIV lui-même n'intervenait aucunement dans la vie, l'enseignement des universités et collèges et la collation des grades

Libérer l'enseignement de la tutelle de l'Etat


Yves Morel, Docteur ès lettres, titulaire d'un DEA de sciences de l'Education, diplômé de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, et Godefroy de Villefollet, directeur d'un réseau d'enseignement supérieur privé, ont publié un ouvrage intitulé En finir avec l'Ecole républicaine. (1)

Plutôt que de prendre partis entre les théoriciens des méthodes pédagogiques modernes et les défenseurs de la sacro-sainte Ecole républicaine, avec son mythe de l'instituteur, cet hussard noir de la République, ils montrent que ces deux camps partagent la même idéologie. Toutes les réformes scolaires ont visé non à adapter l'institution aux besoins de la société, mais à mettre a la portée de tous les études les plus traditionnelles, jugées plus gratifiantes. C'est contre cette idéologie qu'ils s'élèvent :

"Or, le double caractère étatique et monopolistique de l'enseignement public est l'un des vices rédhibitoires de notre système scolaire, nous l'avons vu. Nous vivons, depuis la création de l'Université napoléonienne (1808) et de l'enseignement primaire guizotin ultérieurement rénové par Ferry (1833), sous le régime de l'Etat enseignant et de l'Etat maître souverain exclusif de la collation des grades universitaires. Il s'agit là d'une aberration unique au monde, une de ces regrettables exceptions françaises dont nous nous rengorgeons. [...]

Si bien qu'en France, il n'existe pas de secteur libre et concurrentiel d'enseignement, hors quelques rares établissements privés hors contrat. L'Etat décide des programmes d'enseignement, rémunère les maîtres, impose ses directives réglementaires et son contrôle administratif dans le "privé" sous contrat d'association comme dans le public. Et les collectivités prennent en charge les dépenses matérielles de fonctionnement des établissements relevant de l'un comme de l'autre. Et l'Etat seul confère les grades universitaires. Il n'existe aucune alternative à l'Etat enseignant dont on connaît le marasme. Or, il y a urgence à mettre fin à cet absolutisme scolaire si l'on veut mettre fin à une crise scolaire commencée il y a quarante-cinq ans (et dont les prodromes sont beaucoup plus anciens) et restaurer un système d'enseignement apte à répondre aux exigences du monde actuel et en accord avec les exigences de la coopération européenne. [...]

Si absolu fût-il, Louis XIV lui-même n'intervenait aucunement (et ne songeait pas à le faire) dans la vie, l'enseignement des universités et collèges et la collation des grades. Et de nos jours, il en est de même à l'étranger. Un doctorat de l'université privée de Columbia (New-York) n'est pas accordé par un jury d'Etat et validé par un ministère ou une administration publique, mais uniquement par un jury de cette université ; et il a la même valeur nationale, voire internationale, qu'un doctorat conféré par l'Université de Californie à Los Angeles (UCLA), publique quant à elle. Il n'existe pas de diplômes "privés" d'établissements privés ni de diplômes "publics" d'établissements publics, ni de do-iplômes exclusivement publics, préparables dans des établissements privés, mais décernés uniquement par des jurys d'Etat. Il existe des diplômes universitaires décernés aussi bien par des établissements privés que par des établissements publics, et sans que l'estampille de l'Etat soit nécessaire. L'Etat n'a pas à être propriétaire des diplômes. Les trop fameuses notions de "caractère national" et de "valeur nationale" des diplômes n'ont aucun sens. Nul ne s'en préoccupe à l'étranger ni ne s'en souciait en France avant Napoléon."

(1) 

EN FINIR AVEC L´ECOLE RÉPUBLICAINE

MOREL (Yves), VILLEFOLLET (Godefroy de)

Bref et d'une lecture facile, cet ouvrage jette une lumière nouvelle sur la controverse qui, depuis une quinzaine d'années, oppose les théoriciens des méthodes pédagogiques modernes et les défenseurs de l'"Ecole républicaine". Entre ceux favorables à l'institution d'une démocratie égalitaire par l'Ecole et ceux tenant à l'élitisme républicain, il montre qu'en dépit de l'acerbité de leur conflit, "pédagogistes" et "républicains" appartiennent au même camp idéologique. Toutes les réformes entreprises au nom de la démocratisation de l'enseignement ont visé non à adapter l'institution scolaire et universitaire aux besoins d'une société moderne différente de la société d'ordres d'Ancien Régime en diversifiant les parcours, cursus et filières afin d'offrir à tous les jeunes des débouchés conformes à leurs affinités réelles et à leurs possibilités, mais, à toute force, à mettre a la portée de tous les études à la fois les plus aristocratiques, les plus traditionnelles, jugées les plus gratifiantes et les seules capables d'attester de la dignité d'un homme et d'assurer son épanouissement. D'où le marasme actuel et l'échec complet de notre modèle éducatif, le remède consiste dans le démantèlement de l'Ecole républicaine. Ce n'est pas le ver (pédagogiste) qui est dans le fruit, c'est le fruit qui est vénéneux. 

Yves Morel est Docteur ès lettres, titulaire d'un DEA de sciences de l'Education (sous la direction de Meirieu), diplômé de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales. Il est l'auteur d'ouvrages relatifs à la crise de notre système scolaire :L'idéal scolaire français. De l'utopie à l'entropie, et La fatale perversion du système scolaire français.
Godefroy de Villefollet est directeur d'un réseau d'enseignement supérieur privé.
Source: lesalonbeige.blogs.com