A book is basically just an object made of paper, glue and ink. Has value (if it) for what is written in, but is often replicated in many identical copies, so that the loss of one copy can be said that rarely is a great damage both economically and culturally for humanity.
However, there is a huge symbolic value attached to the idea of \u200b\u200bburning books or damage them is a taboo in our culture in part on the culture shock of Nazism and its purifying fires, on the other heirs to a rich historical tradition. In fact, it is surprising how even this taboo is well established, given the spread of this practice until recently, practiced by various churches and various absolutist regimes.
We are at the point that if a library or any institution decided to be pulped copies of volumes that holds in excess, so you can continue to effectively carry out its mission, some protest, was outraged, organizing sit-ins and even starts to mention inappropriately Ray Bradbury ( who, in his dystopian novel envisioned a society where reading is forbidden and books are being systematically burned by the authorities).
And there's also the fact that the book is often a relic, a real sacred object, such as the flag of the nation or the shirt of the football team. Things, in fact, that should be branded as superstitions by any rational person, whatever the views on what lies behind the symbol: I being a fan of Manchester United, but frankly I do not care at all if you burn the purple shirt, I look up to with compassion.
not understand the crucial importance that newspapers have in recent days to the fact that an American evangelical pastor (same name of a Monty Python) had publicly declared their intention to burn the Koran, were it not for the known law that the mother of idiots is always pregnant. Pastor idiot, idiots who have become Muslims and threatened to cause havoc (as usual, giving the West a very backward image of Islam), rather stupid that the media have given prominence to the news.
The symbolic gesture of the pastor wanted be the answer to another symbolic event whose real importance in the material world is as nothing, or the possible presence of a mosque near Ground Zero, proving further that (which I personally have long advocated) that with good Marx peace of wars and conflicts are more easily triggered by the symbols and ideologies that material and economic reasons actually (after all it is easy to agree on money, while it is impossible to agree on the only true God).
A disrespectful gesture undoubtedly that of the shepherd, who comes from the way it gives the idea of \u200b\u200bnot having a great familiarity with any book and do not know even the content of what he wants to destroy. Although perhaps it should be noted that burning a sacred text, if certainly denotes a certain hostility to freedom of thought, can not always be associated with hostility toward a particular religion, but that the text can be burned to defend their religion .
Larger burners Korans were just Muslims, at the beginning of their history, which in an effort to arrive at one price reference sought to destroy all non-compliant versions. But Catholics are not joking at all, and not only about the gospels and apocryphal texts heretics. Perhaps not everyone knows that in ' Index of prohibited books were The Bible and the Gospels, at least those in the vernacular that could be read by people not too intelligent, and this until 1965 (or until Vatican II). In centuries past we need a special permit to take possession, or the books were likely to end up at the stake, and its owner with them.
Back to us, intolerance, superstition, obscurantism: the three forms of stupidity, all having the same outcome, but there is also a form of stupidity more pure, essential, which can lead to burn a Koran. Suppose, for example, that a journalist should do a feature on American fashion to burn Korans. Suppose further that this journalist has difficoltà a trovare del buon materiale video con cui confezionare il servizio. Che cosa dovrebbe fare il buon diavolo?
Non gli resta che entrare in una libreria, comprare una copia del Corano, e realizzare un filmino casalingo nel quale si vedono solo le sue mani che accendono un cerino e iniziano a dare fuoco al libro. Fatto, servizio realizzato e pubblicato su una delle principali testate online con grande soddisfazione di tutti. Benpensanti di sinistra indignati conto i fondamentalisti cristiani, islamici arrabbiati con l'Occidente tutto, malpensanti di destra indignati contro gli islamici violenti, e giornalisti che si arricchiscono su tutto questo.
Supponiamo però che io veda il filmato e me ne accorga, che sia certo al 99% that it is a tarot. What can I do? Basically it is a serious violation of professional ethics, and not just get away with that. Perhaps I might denounce everything Striscia la Notizia, or better still a catch-as Attivissimo buffaloes. Or I could write a post indignant and groped to raise the anger of the blogosphere against the poor. It would also be right.
But there is one though. Or the fact that the journalist is not hypothetical at all a symbol, but a person of flesh and blood, and I truly risks to harm him denouncing him. Some Muslim, you never know, might even get into his head to make him pay, and something like that I do not think that even merits a knife (basically he just did not throw the puppies in a river).
And because I respect people more symbols, and more people of abstract values \u200b\u200bsuch as truth and fair play, then I should stay silent. At best, the only compromise that I would get him to write a post using only hypothetical periods.
0 comments:
Post a Comment