Marc Salomone / Email: marcsalomone@sfr.fr / blog: madic50.blogspot.com
Paris, Sunday November 19, 2023
REFLECTION ON A SEQUENCE OF OBSTACLES TO CIVIL PEACE IN MODERN SOCIETIES
Jewish and Muslim population groups are each defined by a priority reference to a religion. The Israelis and the Palestinians are the same populations who have the weapons to say it.
Regardless of the circumstances which lead to refusing the criminal adventure of a terrorist movement against the Israeli civilian population and the resurgences of anti-Semitism which has already proven its criminality; civil peace seems impossible between Jews and Muslims, Israelis and Palestinians.
Certain structural elements organize separatism, the creation and exclusion of the other. They are in fact not compatible with civil peace between these two groups and are the catalyst for unrest within the societies which host these groups.
Among these problematic separatist elements from the religions concerned:
1- Sexual mutilation
Both the Jewish and Muslim religions practice sex mutilation (male or female) of their children so that they can never blend into groups other than their own (circumcision and excision).
These religious practices are a relic of the era when religions replaced public power to define the policy of Personal Bond, that is to say the administrative policy of States; the infinite 1-0 combination of computing.
These States have been restored to their prerogatives and precedence.
This is why two populations (childhood and women) are the place of retreat from this undue primacy.
a- the children are minors and therefore under the control of adults and in practice at their disposal. They were historically the first slaves, before women and other enslaved populations.
b- women have no longer been called minors for about a century, which is not a lot, but still largely under the domination of the other sex, at least morally.
The gendered management of the law prevails due to the recognition by the public authorities on this occasion of the primacy of one sex over the other.
For this reason, religious lobbies (all united in the circumstances) concede to the public authorities the ban on excision and the criminalization of excisers.
Since women are considered at least morally inferior, they can serve as a place of negotiation to define modernity through archaism or democracy.
On the other hand, the same people indignantly refuse the ban on the practice of circumcision and a fortiori the criminalization of excisers.
Men being superior, the embodiment of power, there can be no question of shaking the edifice of which they are the supporting walls.
If it were a question of spirituality, these mutilations could be practiced by the majority, on themselves, by willing people.
But it is an administrative marking aimed at organizing the subjugation of a population to a separatist ideology.
Once marked, these people can no longer blend into the swarm of populations and disappear from their initial groups or remain in contact with others.
What interests us is not the legal debate on these mutilating practices but to note:
a- their primary function which is separatism.
b- the flagrant violation of the physical and moral integrity of children.
c- the discreet but firm consolidation of the disqualification of women.
Parents cannot serve as a screen for monopolizing a human's body under the pretext of their education.
2- The culinary separation
The refusal to eat everything with everyone, especially the most universally consumed meat since the dawn of time, pork, is the construction of a wall of separation.
Collective solidarity is here indistinct from individual choice which has no meaning.
The individual is only the bearer of the claim for the construction of a separation.
This separation of the pure and the impure is intended to structure all human relationships.
Sharing a meal is the first act of any meeting. It is made impossible.
3- The funeral
The refusal to be buried in the municipal cemetery, among all the dead, indiscriminately, perpetuates society's differences into eternity.
It is the basis of a divide among the living. It freezes their hatreds and prohibits any evolution and any recomposition of societies.
Far from being an ancestral practice in the process of being eliminated, the separatist demand is more current than ever. It begins with the demand for specific religious squares then evolves into the requirement for separate cemeteries.
4- Public law
For structural reasons, no religion admits the primacy of public law over religious law.
On the other hand, en masse, Christian believers have admitted not to condition the application of civil law on the satisfaction of the procedures of religious law.
A Catholic can refuse divorce for himself, he no longer conditions the acceptance of a divorce judgment on a parallel religious procedure.
In the case of marriage, for example, Jews only accept the decision of public justice under the condition of the application of religious rules of law. Which can lead civil justice to settle disputes that arise from it. Religion is thus maliciously integrated into civil law.
This is a break in the legality.
Muslims are at the forefront of the political movement aimed at making religious law prevail over civil law as a principle of modernity.
In Israel, the founding ambiguity of the State tends to be resolved in favor of religious supremacy.
7- Gender inequality
A major function of religions is the maintenance of the age-old principle of the order of personal links of action between humans, this human fabric constituting all administrations of human activities.
It is based on infinite combinations of both sexes.
It is clear that the global battle of religions has refocused on the quarrel for the equality of the two sexes. They have almost nothing else to say to the public.
Religions appear as the governing force of archaism, that is to say of the inscription in modernity of the enslavement of one sex by the other, of the disqualification, total or partial, of women.
What distinguishes archaism from passéism or conservatism.
Everyone knows the struggle of Muslims to ensure the primacy of the archaic law of gender inequality in the definition of modernity. They make the proclamation of this ancient principle, now shaken, the principle of modernity.
The Jews who appear to participate in democratic modernity maintain alongside the public code a legal code which subordinates women to the opinion of a man; for example for the validation of civil divorce.
That is to say, who maintains, however discreetly, the subordination of women to men.
“Marriage is not a simple agreement between two individuals that can be dissolved as easily as it is entered into. It is the union of two souls. The same God who prescribed a procedure for the merging of two souls (the ceremony held under the nuptial canopy) also prescribed in detail the procedure through which these two souls can return to a state of individuality. »
Inequality is a divine prescription that can be cleverly circumvented but not erased.
In the example of the refusal to recognize the exclusivity of public legality in public practices such as divorce, it appears that the practice of the husband's agreement for divorce makes no sense if both sexes are considered as equal. There is no need to wait for the religious opinion of the husband.
The use of a second right, a right from behind the curtain, only makes sense through allegiance to the inferiority of women.
The religious procedure of marriage like that of divorce having been organized by God himself, the inferiority of women is a divine procedure.
This is not anecdotal at a time when most religious interventions target the status of women.
6- Sacrifices
Animal sacrifices can in fact be derived human sacrifices (it is because Abraham is ready to slaughter his son and not himself that he obtains from God the right to direct his knife on a sheep).
In this case, they mark the supremacy of servitude to God over all other allegiances.
In the case of purely animal sacrifices, they imprint in the food (i.e. the constitution of men), the distinction through religion of the pure and the impure. In other words, the supremacy of the Book over human, secular, universal thought.
Man does not think for himself but through the slitting of throats which reveals to him the extra-terrestrial thought which dominates him.
7- The other
It follows that these separatist systems of thought are braced in the creation of an “other”.
Individuals believe that this other is the evidence of the neighbor who is not ourselves but with whom we could be confused.
No.
In this case, the other is the one who is indefinitely produced and reproduced as the one who cannot be from the same homogeneous space. The more we want to approach it, the further it moves away.
The fear of these separatists is to blend into human groups larger than themselves and to lose their status as human singularities created by extraterrestrials and congenitally distinct from other human sectors. They have the fear of disappearing, of falling, into a future global humanity that is necessarily inferior.
They can trade but not blend, even in the long term.
However, peace is founded by this conviction of belonging to the same human group whatever the differences and the possibility, one day, of becoming one.
What may seem curious is that they wage war with each other with such rage while they participate in the same space of exclusion of their neighbors (the Goys, the unbelievers).
They find themselves in the situation of these sectarian groups which appear to share the same ideals but which each claim to hold the secret of the true Cross. The fight is as futile as it is merciless.
Between Israel and the Muslims of Palestine, the issue is the recognition of the supremacy of one over the other.
It is pleasant to see that throughout the twists and turns of these battles, the parties both call on the rescue of these inferior others that they create through their sacrificial ceremonies.
In Europe, conflicts between Jews and Muslims have the same function as bar fights. It starts between two customers and ends in a general melee and the ransacking of the business.
To a large extent, these intercommunity clashes, Muslims and Jews, have a function which is not apparent at first glance but which aims to make these principles work and to impose them on everyone, especially on the "others".
In France, the so-called “intercommunity” clashes, between Muslims and Jews, are a centerpiece of the action to undermine the 1905 law.
There are other reasons for human conflict; economic for example.
But in the case of Palestine (from the Jordan to the Sea) economic conflicts, and their solutions, will only appear when these populations have overcome their passionate inscription in archaic sectors.
In France, in Europe, we will only be able to control the tremors of this earthquake by having a clear awareness of their mode of propagation.
Civil peace will be maintained by the installation of modernity on the primacy of democratic civil principles over religious principles of disqualification of some in relation to others.
The right to security guarantees the peaceful life of Jews and everyone.
It also guarantees that of children and thus their physical and moral integrity. A child has no need to see his penis butchered to receive education from his parents.
The uniqueness of legal procedures defined by assemblies elected by universal suffrage disqualifies any public reference to private procedures.
The principle of equality under the law of everyone guarantees the equality of both sexes and leads to their parity, that is to say to their equal, universal, joint, legal presence in the formation and exercise of public powers. and their dependencies.
There can then be a single humanity, however diverse it may be. Peace is then possible.
Conclusion
Peace between two parties which cannot disappear requires the abandonment of the particular pretensions which make it impossible.
Jews, Muslims, the "others", must condescend to respect the physical and moral integrity of children (bringing the religious education of children back to the word of the parents and not to their knives), eat everything with everyone, bury their dead among everyone, recognize the public uniqueness of law and its human source, admit the equality of the sexes without additions.
On this condition, they will no longer need to mime intercommunity wars to establish their domination over everyone and above all.
Marc SALOMONE
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire