Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta Bíblia. Mostrar todas as mensagens
Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta Bíblia. Mostrar todas as mensagens

sábado, 23 de outubro de 2010

Saramago e Deus - Crónica de Anselmo Borges

Passado o rebuliço mediático, quereria escrever sobre o tema em epígrafe. Só sobre ele. Deixo, pois, as questões literárias, partidárias, políticas, incluindo a nódoa indelével daquele desgraçado despedimento de 22 jornalistas do DN por delito de opinião. Exijo-me este texto, até porque, numa entrevista a João Céu e Silva, Saramago se me referiu com admiração por ter lido e gostado do seu livro Caim: "Até fiquei surpreendido quando ouvi um teólogo - uma coisa é um teólogo e outra um padre -, Anselmo Borges, dizer que tinha gostado do livro".
 Quem, no meu entender, melhor escreveu sobre o tema foi Eduardo Lourenço. Entre outras coisas, porque introduziu o pensar sobre o ateísmo até ao limite. "O que designamos por 'ateísmo', na sua literal acepção, significa, geralmente, mais do que o seu conteúdo dialecticamente negativo. Denota um relacionamento de grau nulo com o referente Deus. É tão impensável ou inacessível na sua ordem como a pura transcendência, que é conteúdo real ou imaginário de Deus. Ser ateu é só ser e estar ‘sem Deus’. Perspectiva tão vertiginosa como a que a referência a Deus assinala, sob o modo de uma 'ausência' tão impensável como a de Deus e não menos 'abscôndita', só que mais dolorosa, que a da presença das presenças."
Segundo a tradição e na modernidade, "considerou-se ateu e deve assim ser considerado o sujeito para quem 'o nome' e, sob ele, a mesma ideia de Deus - não o conceito - não tem sentido algum." Mas não haveria mais motivo para designar como "ateu" quem "tivesse a pretensão de o objectivar, ou de conceber claramente, o que ele mesmo chama Deus"? Afinal, verdadeiramente ateus não seriam precisamente "os chamados teólogos, pelo menos os clássicos - anteriores a Karl Barth -, que sabiam tudo de Deus, ou que sabem tudo de Deus"?
Exceptuando os místicos, é raríssimo o crente que se apercebe de que perante Deus só o silêncio é que diz, pois, no limite, Deus é nada do que dele o linguajar humano possa dizer. Ouvi uma vez a Jacques Lacan: "os teólogos não crêem em Deus, porque falam dele". E também Karl Barth, o maior teólogo protestante do século XX, disse que conhecia muito bem um certo ateu: justamente Karl Barth.
Há dois modos de negação de Deus: a negação real e a negação determinada.
Por negação determinada, entende-se a negação de um determinado Deus, de uma certa imagem de Deus. Foi o que Saramago fez. Como podia ele ou alguém intelectualmente honesto aceitar um deus cruel e sanguinário?
No Caim, é essa imagem do deus violento e arbitrário que denuncia. Não é de facto a Bíblia judaica, no dizer do exegeta católico Norbert Lohfink, "um dos livros mais cheios de sangue da literatura mundial"? De qualquer modo, o nome de Deus foi demasiadas vezes invocado para legitimar a violência e o derramamento de sangue de inocentes.
É certo que no Novo Testamento, na única tentativa de "definir" Deus, se diz que "Deus é amor incondicional". Mas também há acenos para uma interpretação sacrificial da morte de Cristo, teorizada sobretudo por santo Anselmo e desde então muito pregada: Deus precisou da morte do seu próprio Filho, para reparar a ofensa infinita cometida pelos homens e assim reconciliar-se com a humanidade. Ora, precisamente perante esta concepção sacrificial da sua morte como preço do resgate do pecado, como não entender a inversão da oração de Cristo na Cruz? Onde, no Evangelho, se diz: "Pai, perdoa-lhes, porque não sabem o que fazem", lê-se, em Saramago: "Homens, perdoai-lhe, porque ele não sabe o que fez".
A negação determinada não significa negação real. A pergunta é, portanto, se Saramago negou realmente Deus ou se, pelo contrário, na negação do deus arbitrário e sanguinário, não está dialecticamente presente o clamor pelo único Deus verdadeiro, o do Anti-mal. De qualquer modo, segundo Saramago, "Deus é o silêncio do universo, e o ser humano o grito que dá sentido a esse silêncio". "Esta definição de Saramago é a mais bela que alguma vez li ou ouvi", escreveu o teólogo Juan José Tamayo.
Texto no DN de hoje

sábado, 11 de setembro de 2010

Robert Fisk - Nine years, two wars, hundreds of thousands dead and nothing learnt

Por ser demasiado extenso, não o traduzo, mas por me parecer muito interessante, não quero deixar de reproduzir este artigo-reflexão de Robert Fisk publicado hoje no jornal  The Independent
«Did 9/11 make us all go mad? How fitting, in a weird, crazed way, that the apotheosis of that firestorm nine years ago should turn out to be a crackpot preacher threatening another firestorm with a Nazi-style book burning of the Koran. Or a would-be mosque two blocks from "ground zero" – as if 9/11 was an onslaught on Jesus-worshipping Christians, rather than on the atheist West.
But why should we be surprised? Just look at all the other crackpots spawned in the aftermath of those international crimes against humanity: the half-crazed Ahmadinejad, the smarmy post-nuclear Gaddafi, Blair with his crazed right eye and George W Bush with his black prisons and torture and lunatic "war on terror". And that wretched man who lived – or lives still – in an Afghan cave and the hundreds of al-Qa'idas whom he created, and the one-eyed mullah – not to mention all the lunatic cops and intelligence agencies and CIA thugs who failed us all – utterly – on 9/11 because they were too idle or too stupid to identify 19 men who were going to attack the United States. And remember one thing: even if the Rev Terry Jones sticks with his decision to back down, another of our cranks will be ready to take his place.  
Indeed, on this grim ninth anniversary – and heaven spare us next year from the 10th – 9/11 appears to have produced not peace or justice or democracy or human rights, but monsters. They have prowled Iraq – both the Western and the local variety – and slaughtered 100,000 souls, or 500,000, or a million; and who cares? They have killed tens of thousands in Afghanistan; and who cares? And as the sickness has spread across the Middle East and then the globe, they – the air force pilots and the insurgents, the Marines and the suicide bombers, the al-Qa'idas of the Maghreb and of the Khalij and of the Caliphate of Iraq and the special forces and the close air support boys and the throat-cutters – have torn the heads off women and children and the old and the sick and the young and healthy, from the Indus to the Mediterranean, from Bali to the London Tube; quite a memorial to the 2,966 innocents who were killed nine years ago. All in their name, it seems, has been our holocaust of fire and blood, enshrined now in the crazed pastor of Gainesville.
This is the loss, of course. But who's made the profit? Well, the arms dealers, naturally, and Boeing and Lockheed Martin and all the missile lads and the drone manufacturers and F-16 spare parts outfits and the ruthless mercenaries who stalk the Muslim lands on our behalf now that we have created 100,000 more enemies for each of the 19 murderers of 9/11. Torturers have had a good time, honing their sadism in America's black prisons – it was appropriate that the US torture centre in Poland should be revealed on this ninth anniversary – as have the men (and women, I fear) who perfect the shackles and water-drowning techniques with which we now fight our wars. And – let us not forget – every religious raver in the world, be they of the Bin Laden variety, the bearded groupies in the Taliban, the suicide executioners, the hook-in the arm preachers, or our very own pastor of Gainesville.
And God? Where does he fit in? An archive of quotations suggests that just about every monster created in or after 9/11 is a follower of this quixotic redeemer. Bin Laden prays to God – "to turn America into a shadow of itself", as he told me in 1997 – and Bush prayed to God and Blair prayed – and prays – to God, and all the Muslim killers and an awful lot of Western soldiers and Dr (honorary) Pastor Terry Jones and his 30 (or it may be 50, since all statistics are hard to come by in the "war on terror") pray to God. And poor old God, of course, has had to listen to these prayers as he always sits through them during our mad wars. Recall the words attributed to him by a poet of another generation: "God this, God that, and God the other thing. 'Good God,' said God, 'I've got my work cut out'." And that was just the First World War...
Just five years ago – on the fourth anniversary of the twin towers/Pentagon/Pennsylvania attacks – a schoolgirl asked me at a lecture in a Belfast church whether the Middle East would benefit from more religion. No – less religion! – I howled back. God is good for contemplation, not for war. But – and here we are driven on to the reefs and hidden rocks which our leaders wish us to ignore, forget and cast aside – this whole bloody mess involves the Middle East; it is about a Muslim people who have kept their faith while those Westerners who dominate them – militarily, economically, culturally, socially – have lost theirs. How can this be, Muslims ask? Indeed, it is a superb irony that the Rev Jones is a believer while the rest of us – by and large – are not. Hence our books and our documentaries never refer to Muslims vs Christians, but Muslims versus "The West".
And of course, the one taboo subject of which we must not speak – Israel's relationship with America, and America's unconditional support for Israel's theft of land from Muslim Arabs – also lies at the heart of this terrible crisis in our lives. In yesterday's edition of The Independent, there was a photograph of Afghan demonstrators chanting "death to America". But in the background, these same demonstrators were carrying a black banner with a message in Dari written upon it in white paint. What it actually said was: "The bloodsucking Zionist government regime and the Western leaders who are indifferent [to suffering] and have no conscience are again celebrating the new year by spilling the red blood of the Palestinians."
The message is as extreme as it is vicious – but it proves, yet again, that the war in which we are engaged is also about Israel and "Palestine". We may prefer to ignore this in "the West" – where Muslims supposedly "hate us for what we are" or "hate our democracy" (see: Bush, Blair and a host of other mendacious politicians) – but this great conflict lies at the heart of the "war on terror". That is why the equally vicious Benjamin Netanyahu reacted to the atrocities of 9/11 by claiming that the event would be good for Israel. Israel would now be able to claim that it, too, was fighting the "war on terror", that Arafat – this was the now-comatose Ariel Sharon's claim – is "our Bin Laden". And thus Israelis had the gall to claim that Sderot, under its cascade of tin-pot missiles from Hamas, was "our ground zero".
It was not. Israel's battle with the Palestinians is a ghastly caricature of our "war on terror", in which we are supposed to support the last colonial project on earth – and accept its thousands of victims – because the twin towers and the Pentagon and United Flight 93 were attacked by 19 Arab murderers nine years ago. There is a supreme irony in the fact that one direct result of 9/11 has been the stream of Western policemen and spooks who have travelled to Israel to improve their "anti-terrorist expertise" with the help of Israeli officers who may – according to the United Nations – be war criminals. It was no surprise to find that the heroes who gunned down poor old Jean Charles de Menezes on the London Tube in 2005 had been receiving "anti-terrorist" advice from the Israelis.
And yes, I know the arguments. We cannot compare the actions of evil terrorists with the courage of our young men and women, defending our lives – and sacrificing theirs – on the front lines of the 'war on terror". There can be no "equivalence". "They" kill innocents because "they" are evil. "We" kill innocents by mistake. But we know we are going to kill innocents – we willingly accept that we are going to kill innocents, that our actions are going to create mass graves of families, of the poor and the weak and the dispossessed.
This is why we created the obscene definition of "collateral damage". For if "collateral" means that these victims are innocent, then "collateral" also means that we are innocent of killing them. It was not our wish to kill them – even if we knew it was inevitable that we would. "Collateral" is our exoneration. This one word is the difference between "them" and "us", between our God-given right to kill and Bin Laden's God-given right to murder. The victims, hidden away as "collateral" corpses, don't count any more because they were slaughtered by us. Maybe it wasn't so painful. Maybe death by drone is a more gentle departure from this earth, evisceration by an AGM-114C Boeing-Lockheed air-to-ground missile less painful, than death by shards from a roadside bomb or a cruel suicider with an explosive belt.
That's why we know how many died on 9/11 – 2,966, although the figure may be higher – and why we don't "do body counts" on those whom we kill. Because they – "our" victims – must have no identities, no innocence, no personality, no cause or belief or feelings; and because we have killed far, far more human beings than Bin Laden and the Taliban and al-Qa'ida.
Anniversaries are newspaper and television events. And they can have an eerie habit of coalescing together to create an unhappy memorial framework. Thus do we commemorate the Battle of Britain – a chivalric episode in our history – and the Blitz, a progenitor of mass murder, to be sure, but a symbol of innocent courage – as we remember the start of a war that has torn our morality apart, turned our politicians into war criminals, our soldiers into killers and our ruthless enemies into heroes of the anti-Western cause. And while on this gloomy anniversary the Rev Jones wanted to burn a book called the Koran, Tony Blair tried to sell a book called A Journey. Jones said the Koran was "evil"; Britons have asked whether the Blair book should be classified as "crime". Certainly, 9/11 has moved into fantasy when the Rev Jones can command the attention of the Obamas and the Clintons and the Holy Father and the even more Holy United Nations. Whom the gods would destroy...»
(sublinhado meu)