part 2…
There is a ‘Spectator’s debate about state proscription in England that I give here now. Pope Benedict XVI is correct: the Equality Bill is fundamentally un-British, said David Blackburn in Spectator-magazine on Tuesday, 2nd February 2010. Without gays, the Catholic Church couldn’t muster enough priests to form a hurling team. I doubt His Holiness and I would hit it off, but he is right that Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill would impose strictures upon religious communities that run contrary to their beliefs. The coalescence of British and EU anti-discrimination law is but an immodest garment for trenchant ideology. Harman’s bill strives to subjugate individual freedoms, such as that to religious expression, beneath state-imposed rights. This legislation is the progeny of faith in social engineering, not social mobility; it ignores that toleration and freedom in Britain were derived from the right to religious observance free from state proscriptions. If enacted, the bill will require organisations to employ without thought to suitability, and allocate resources under the perverse dictates of positive-discrimination. In practice it will conflict with the stupendous fabric of precedents that define rights to individual expression as supreme. Ironically, anti-discrimination measures will be invoked to ensure that religious groups may practice their faith without hindrance. Equality defers to liberty. Everything about this horrid government is un-British; it has done damage with every act, it has perverted our traditional values of, fairness, moderation, tolerance and tries to impose its own perverted diktats. Atheistic homosexuals must not feel abandoned. One hardly knows whether to laugh or cry. The demonstrations against the Pope’s visit to Britain are to feature Peter Tatchell, who, by lowering the age of consent to 14, would legalise practically all of the acts that have brought scandal on the Church. Except when Catholic priests engage in them, sexual acts between men and teenage boys are glorified by the Political and Media Classes, who vilify anyone who objects. Tatchell’s treatment as a National Treasure illustrates this. As does the political role of Harriet Harman of the Equalities Bill, formerly legal advisor to the Paedophile Information Exchange and to Paedophile Action for Liberation, as reported in The Daily Telegraph last March. Perhaps the Holy Father expected the Tories to take the cue, and pipe up that they would repeal the Equalities Bill and other anti-Catholic, anti-Christian legislation. But I doubt it. Their votes, on this and on eighty-five per cent of the Government’s programme, speak for themselves. So his point is made precisely by their, and the Lib Dems’, failure to say a word: do not vote for any of them, but make alternative arrangements instead. Hating gays is not fundamentally Catholic. Pandering to gays is fundamentally Blairite and Heirite. Doubtless Labour think that they can invoke the latent anti-Catholicism present not far from the surface in Britain so that people will ignore what the Pope is saying and what the real issue is. There are 2 issues here: the right of gays not to suffer discrimination and the right of religious groups to practise their faith freely. I see no good reason why religious groups should not be able to say that if you want to join them, work for them then you need to subscribe to the faith i.e. if a gay person wishes to work for the Catholic church then he should be expected to be a Catholic. To say otherwise, to say that a synagogue or a church or a mosque should be required by law to employ someone who does not share their faith, indeed, may be hostile to it or behaving in a way incompatible with it is abhorrent. This is not about equality or toleration: it’s about an intolerant secular world view seeking to impose its view on those who are religious. The second issue follows from the first: when minorities have rights which clash with each other, whose rights come first? Or do we have a sort of Top Trumps where this group’s rights trump that group’s rights? Labour have led us into this cul de sac because they simply do not (or refuse to) understand what true toleration is in a liberal democracy – live and let live – but rather think that there is only one approved way of thinking or living and that it is the state’s job to ensure that everyone should share that view. More generally, if Judeo-Christian values which- in their broadest sense – underpin Western civilization, are pushed out of the public domain, there will be a vacuum into which all sorts of nasty, un-Western and/or definitely not liberal or tolerant views will come rushing in: Fascism and Communism in the last century and their bastard child – political Islam in this. Catholics don’t hate gays, but homosexuality is considered a sin, this is of course an almost obsolete concept for Protestants and irrelevant to atheists and agnostics, who must judge this practice, or preference, on different criteria. So it is perfectly common and reasonable for people to accept the personal right for individuals to practice homosexuality, as with hetrosexuality, within the limits considered acceptable by society, whilst finding its practice personally unappealing and repugnant. On the same basis, neither hetro nor homosexuals, of whatever religion, age or gender, should be subject to discrimination or its concomitant, woefully misconceived equality legislation. Anybody who believes that blind enforcement of “equality” is a good thing or who believes the mantra that “discrimination is wicked” must be either malevolent or very stupid indeed – or insane. Carroll Barry Walsh The Catholic Church calls gays “disordered and morally evil” sound like hate to me.. The Catholic Church is the biggest force for evil that human beings have ever the misfortune to encounter .. Islam is but a rank amateur in human misery in comparison. I found on this debate such as follows: ‘The Catholic Church is the biggest force for evil that human beings have ever the misfortune to encounter .. Islam is but a rank amateur in human misery in comparison.’

Stanislaw Barszczak; The responsibility of ‘the Polish national anthem’…

Was it the extreme irresponsibility that a wing aircraft it flew away, and the plane burst The plane was in excellent condition. Lech Aleksander Kaczyński (Polish pronunciation: [ˈlɛx alɛˈksandɛr kaˈtʂɨɲskʲi] (18 June 1949 – 10 April 2010) was the President of Poland from 2005 to 2010, a politician of the party Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (Law and Justice, PiS). Kaczyński served as Mayor of Warsaw from 2002 until 22 December 2005, the day before his presidential inauguration. He was the identical twin brother of the former Prime Minister of Poland and current Chairman of the Law and Justice party, Jarosław Kaczyński. On 10 April 2010, he and his wife Maria Kaczyńska died when a Polish Air Force Tupolev Tu-154M crashed while attempting to land at Smolensk-North airport in Russia. There were no survivors on the plane, which was carrying senior Polish government officials on a trip to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Katyn massacre. Here is a homily of Card. Angelo Sodano,The Holy Father’s Representative to the funeral of the President of Republic of Poland and other victims of the plane crash in Smolensk;
You have come in great numbers from different parts of the world and from various places in Poland to this historic Marian Basilica to pay homage to President Lech Alexander Kaczynski, who left his noble Nation in grief, in tragic and soul-wringing circumstances, and also to the other ninety-four victims of the plane crash in Smolensk.
I have also come from the Vatican, the heart of the Catholic world, to assure the authorities and the Nation of the Republic of Poland of Pope’s Benedict XVI closeness and solidarity with you.
For more than a thousand years this dear Polish community has always been deeply unified with the Church in Rome. Close bonds of the Church communion were strengthened even more by the contribution brought by the Church in Cracow to the whole Christian community through the gift of the great Pope, that is John Paul II.
I am glad, therefore, to be able to bring here the prayer, greeting and blessing of the Pope Benedict XVI. Our encounter has come about in a sad moment of Polish Nation’s history, in one of the many tragic hours of her past. But the very history tells us that this magnanimous people was always able to react properly in the time of trial and find a way to a better social co-existence and to a great national unity. Such is now the wish, directed again towards the Polish Nation by Pope Benedict XVI – the wish for the Nation to stay in unity on the path of concord and active cooperation with other nations, in order to bring to the world an era of a true civilisation. Also from you, the Heads of countries and authorities, who have come to Poland, in this hour of national mourning comes the message of a great hope for the future. It is a hope that here, in Europe, as well as in the whole world, bonds of friendship and cooperation between peoples will be strengthened. It is a hope for a great solidarity between Nations in the joyful and sad moments of their history, with respect to their own identity and the culture of the nations. „Nations do not perish,” successive Popes repeated on various occasions. The great son of this Polish land, Pope John Paul II, during his visit to the UN talked about the rights of a person but also about the “Rights of the Nations.” Late lamented Pope John Paul II and the present Pope Benedict XVI unanimously remind us about the obligation to sustain solidarity between the Nations, in light of the great and superior principle of the unity of the humankind. I cannot therefore fail to express the wish that the homage we pay today to the late President of the Republic of Poland, as well as the respectful thought we direct towards the victims of Katyn, who were to be honoured by the President, should contribute to developing a more unified Europe and world. The Church, on her part, is involved in fulfilling this great ideal by carrying to the hearts of the Nations the Christ’s Gospel, which is a potent leaven, having the power to transform and refine every community and prepare us for a better world. Dear Friends, for the Christians all over the world Easter time is the time of hope. Christ’s resurrection is the guarantee of victory also for the contemporary people. Christ’s light illuminates the mystery of personal and national grief also today. Dear Polish friends, remember that the words of Psalm 144 are always relevant: „Happy is the people whose God is the Lord!”

Lessons from a lifetime of writing

My mother had difficulty raising a small child and holding down a full-time job without help, so she placed me in an orphanage and later in a series of boarding homes. I grew up unsure of who he was, desperately in need of a father figure. Books and movies were an escape.At the age of seventeen I became a fan of the classic television series, Odyssey, and the young people’s movies, about two young men in a lorry traveling the Europe in search of America and themselves.In my own case, I had a happy childhood. Then after school I went to parishes as a priest. Unfortunately I remember at the time I slept undethe sense of sight. As an experiment, I wanted to try it, however, because I felt that it was extremely appropriate to the main character’s emotions. Usually, in an abduction story, an author will choose alternating third-person viewpoints in which the victims, and the person left behind are dramatized. But in life, there are no such alternating viewpoints. What happens to each of us happens one hundred percent. Each of us is trapped in an isolated viewpoint. In my books I wanted to communicate that sense of isolation. First of all, I wanted to create some mystery about my hero. Second, I wanted to make the reader sympathetic toward him. The character has been through enormous suffering. His psyche is wounded. We’re afraid of him, but we also understand why he acts as he does. Using these senses makes the reader feel the scene rather than see it. ..Pacing is also an issue-how much detail to include and how much to leave out. …I try to learn about everything I write about. Then I send my manuscripts to the editor I learned from and ask them to point out any errors. r the bed, fearing for my safety. My traveling round the Poland and whole world, these events still the other day, left me anxious about the stability of everyday life. The death of my mother in 2005 only reinforced my conviction that we can’t take anything for granted, that life can suddenly turn against us. My books dramatize that sort of abrupt change. I’m consumed by guilt and regret. For me, in a debate between nature and nurture, nurture is the most important factor. I’m known for heroes who’ve been trained to handle action and holy of holiesThe hero of my story is a complex man who has to face some interesting things from his childhood. How did I create the character of my hero? I’ve also written about a different kind of hero, someone who’s leading a normal everyday existence and then is suddenly forced to be extraordinary, to find resources that the character never imagined he or she possessed. My hero mostly has a loving marriage, a wonderful son or daughter, and a successful career. He embodies the American Dream of life. The “I” narrator is a dangerous viewpoint because it tends to lead to wordiness, to telling rather than showing, and to an over-reliance on the sense of sight. As an experiment, I wanted to try it, however, because I felt that it was extremely appropriate to the main character’s emotions. Usually, in an abduction story, an author will choose alternating third-person viewpoints in which the victims, and the person left behind are dramatized. But in life, there are no such alternating viewpoints. What happens to each of us happens one hundred percent. Each of us is trapped in an isolated viewpoint. In my books I wanted to communicate that sense of isolation. First of all, I wanted to create some mystery about my hero. Second, I wanted to make the reader sympathetic toward him. The character has been through enormous suffering. His psyche is wounded. We’re afraid of him, but we also understand why he acts as he does. Using these senses makes the reader feel the scene rather than see it. ..Pacing is also an issue-how much detail to include and how much to leave out. …I try to learn about everything I write about. Then I send my manuscripts to the editor I learned from and ask them to point out any errors. As I mentioned I’ve had courses in forest survival (lived for days in a very difficult situations ), in being a mum’s bodyguard, in surveillance, electronic eavesdropping, hostage negotiation, firearms, etc. My most fun experience was learning how to car fight. I learned how to do the forward and backward spins at high speeds, how to ram barricades, etc.
I was asked to contribute an essay to a collection of articles about writing fiction. The idea of writing about writing had never occurred to me before, although it seemed a natural thing to do, I guess, given that I had been a priest and a professor of theology and literature for 24 years and that teaching was an essential part of me. The essay I chose to do was about the common mistakes in dialogue. Luckily, I found a tone that was amusing while being informative. It gave the feeling that I was addressing the reader in person. Later, an editor got in touch with me, saying that he’d read the essay and wondered if I would do a whole book about writing fiction, provided I retained that personal tone. The temptation was too strong to be refused, so between working on my novels, I worked on the writing book. Whenever I got stuck in a difficult part of my fiction, I switched to writing non-fiction about writing fiction. The experience was great fun and emotionally rewarding. Writers rely often so much on the sense of sight that their prose feels flat. Another common mistake is that they begin at the wrong place in the story, thus requiring the unfortunate use of flashbacks. ..There’s something in me that loves providing people with information. It gives me great pleasure to explain things, to help people save time by quickly learning from me what it took me years to discover. When the students are bright and eager (as they were at the University where I taught), the experience becomes doubly rewarding. A lot of teaching also gets done in my novels. In each one, I try to give the reader a great deal of information. I once had a young man who told me that he wanted to write a detective novel. To me, all types of books are equally valid, and I applauded his intention. Six months later, he returned with a manuscript that read like an imitation of somebody. It was a well-written book, but it was old-fashioned and derivative, with no chance of being published.
My mother did read a prayer book only. I was encouraged to do so. And I was an only child who spent a great deal of time alone. I eventually learned that could be wonderful companions, and in an unhappy home, I sought refuge in reading whenever I could. The next step was to write books so that I could give others the chance to find a refuge from their lives. Somebody said, “Reality’s a nice place to visit, but you wouldn’t want to live there.” Writing about mother and sons has been a sort of compulsion that I didn’t realize controlled me until I reached the middle of my career. As I mentioned on that book, my father died in 1978. My mother has been alone. And I was an infant. I’m not sure if father ever saw me. I grew up, profoundly missing a sympathetic male authority figure in my life. Perhaps that’s why I relied on mentors. When my mum died (from cancer I suppose), the theme of some of the later novels shifted from the “search for the mother” to the “search for the son,” which is evident in my books. And I’ve found Jesus, I knew him personally.
The Internet is an amazing way to transmit information. I use it extensively for research and for publicity. In fact, I want just to acquire a website: I couldn’t get .com because another man with my name already had the .com. So now I’m a network, as David Morrel said and readers who visit my site will be amazed by how much information I give them. As far as ebooks go, I’m old-fashioned and want to hold a text in my hand, so I doubt that I’ll be experimenting in that direction. When you’re not working, what are your favorite ways to relax and have fun? I’m an avid tennis player. In the summer, I love working in our vegetable garden. I enjoy reading that goes without saying. I also enjoy watching movies on DVD. Research for my novels is also a wonderful form of entertainment, going out and learning to do the exciting things that I write about. I think we hear rather circumstances than a word of God. I wanted to take in this book the opportunity of visiting our friends on city of the our kindred spirits.

Po katastrofie lotniczej Polskiej Delegacji na obchody 70. rocznicy katyńskiej

W lesie katyńskim zostało popełnione przestępstwo, dokonano zbrodni na 22 tysięcach polskich oficerów. Były to sowieckie zbrodnie wojenne z okresu II wojny światowej. W skład oficjalnej delegacji na obchody 70. rocznicy katyńskiej wchodzili m.in. prezydent Polski Pan Lech Kaczyński i jego żona Pani Maria Kaczyńska i ostatni prezydent II Rzeczpospolitej Pan Ryszard Kaczorowski. Mieli wziąć udział w tym smutnym momencie polskiej historii. Niestety, wszyscy zginęli tragicznie, wszyscy zmarli śmiercią gwałtowną. To stało się w zeszłym tygodniu, w sobotę po Wielkanocy, 10 kwietnia 2010 roku. Polska utraciła 96 osób. To bardzo ważne osoby dla życia naszego kraju, wybitne talenty i osobistości. Teraz jest prowadzone oficjalne śledztwo w sprawie przyczyn katastrofy samolotu (Tu 154). Z tego powodu pragnę wyrazić smutek i żal oraz przekazać kondolencje Rodzinom zmarłych po śmierci bliskich krewnych. Modlę się za nich do Boga. Reakcja na wszelką krzywdę objawia nasz charakter. Nie sposób przejść obojętnie obok tej tragedii, która zwróciła uwagę świata na Katyń-symbol narodu. Politycy mają otworzyć archiwa. Nam trzeba na nowo odkryć wielkość polskości. Nadto śprzypomina mi się tutaj pewien tekst z Biblii: ”1 W czasach Dawida nastał głód, trwający przez trzy lata z zędu. Dawid więc radził się Pana. A Pan dał mu taką odpowiedź: “Krew pozostaje na Saulu i jego domu: bo wymordował Gibeonitów”. 2 Król wezwał do siebie Gibeonitów i rozmawiał z nimi. Gibeonici nie wywodzili się z Izraelitów, lecz z resztek Amorytów. Chociaż Izraelici przysięgali im, jednak Saul starał się ich wyniszczyć z powodu gorliwości o Izraela i Judę. 3 Dawid zapytał Gibeonitów: “Co wam winienem uczynić i czym was ułagodzić, abyście błogosławili dziedzictwo Pańskie?” 4 Oświadczyli mu Gibeonici: “Z Saulem i jego domem, nie chodzi nam o srebro ani złoto. Nie chcemy również spowodować śmierci żadnego człowieka w Izraelu”. Zapytał: “Co powiecie, to wam uczynię”. 5 Odpowiedzieli królowi: “[Z powodu] człowieka, który nas niszczył i zamierzał naszą zgubę, żebyśmy przestali istnieć na całym obszarze Izraela, 6 niech wydadzą nam siedmiu mężczyzn z jego potomków. Powiesimy ich wobec Pana na wzgórzu Saula, który był wybrańcem Pańskim”. Król odpowiedział: “Wydam ich wam”. 7 Król oszczędził jednak Meribbaala, syna Jonatana, syna Saula, z powodu przysięgi złożonej wobec Pana wiążącej Dawida i Jonatana, syna Saula. 8 Król wziął dwóch synów Rispy, córki Ajji, których zrodziła dla Saula: Armoniego, Meribbaala, pięciu synów Merab, córki Saula, których zrodziła dla Adriela, syna Barzillaja z Mecholi. 9 Oddał ich w ręce Gibeonitów. Powiesili ich oni na wzgórzu wobec Pana. Razem zginęło ich siedmiu. Zostali straceni w pierwsze dni żniw: był to początek żniw jęczmienia. 10 Rispa, córka Ajji, wzięła worek i rozłożywszy go na kamieniu, od początku żniw aż do zroszenia ich deszczem z nieba, nie dozwalała, by ptactwo z powietrza rzucało się na nich w ciągu dnia, a dzikie zwierzęta w nocy. 11 Zawiadomiono Dawida o tym, co zrobiła Rispa, córka Ajji, nałożnica Saula. 12 Dawid podążył, aby od obywateli Jabesz w Gileadzie zabrać kości Saula i kości Jonatana – jego syna, które wzięli po kryjomu z placu w Bet-Szean, gdzie zostali powieszeni przez Filistynów, wtedy gdy Filistyni zadali klęskę Saulowi na wzgórzu Gilboa. 13 Zabrał stąd kości Saula i kości jego syna Jonatana, pozbierano również kości powieszonych. 14 Pogrzebano kości Saula i jego syna Jonatana w krainie Beniamina w Selam, w grobie jego ojca – Kisza. Zrobiono wszystko tak, jak król zarządził. Potem dopiero Bóg okazał się dla kraju łaskawy.”(2 Sm). Gwałt rodzi gwałt. I nasze słowa zostaną osądzone na dzień Jezusa. Błogosławieństwo Boga dokona się kiedy sprawiedliwość samą weźmiemy w obronę. Z wyrazami najwyższego szacunku i czci dla wszystkich poległych pod Katyniem.
ks. Stanisław Barszczak

After an air crash of Polish Delegation on the celebration of 70th anniversary of Katyn

In the forest of Katyn have been commited a crime of a killing of 22 thousands Polish Officers. There were Soviet war crimes of period of II World War. It’s made a search of these crimes already. The Official Delegation on the celebration of 70th anniversary of Katyn with the President of Poland Mr Lech Kaczynski and his wife Miss Mary Kaczynski , it would have been participated in this sad moment of Polish History. Elas, it’s happened an air crash. Everyone have been tragically killed, all died a violent death. It’s occurred last week, on Saturday after Easter, on April 10, 2010. Poland lost 96 a very important persons for a life of our country, an outstanding talents, eminences, personages. Now it’s conducting an official inquiry into the cause of the plane crash (Tu 154). For that reason I express sadness and offer the Families’ of the deads condolences after their close relatives a death. I pray for them and plead for ones before God. We watched them climbing on the mountains of our problems of today. A reaction on a harm appears our character. A life of our personages wasn’t a bed of roses. They knew a story of their country. For that reason we have to discover a greatness of our country again. So, there would be a king’s funeral. In the Bible we read: “1 During the reign of David, there was a famine for three successive years; so David sought the face of the LORD. The LORD said, “It is on account of Saul and his blood-stained house; it is because he put the Gibeonites to death.” 2 The king summoned the Gibeonites and spoke to them. (Now the Gibeonites were not a part of Israel but were survivors of the Amorites; the Israelites had sworn to spare them, but Saul in his zeal for Israel and Judah had tried to annihilate them.) 3 David asked the Gibeonites, “What shall I do for you? How shall I make amends so that you will bless the LORD’s inheritance?” 4 The Gibeonites answered him, “We have no right to demand silver or gold from Saul or his family, nor do we have the right to put anyone in Israel to death.” “What do you want me to do for you?” David asked. 5 They answered the king, “As for the man who destroyed us and plotted against us so that we have been decimated and have no place anywhere in Israel, 6 let seven of his male descendants be given to us to be killed and exposed before the LORD at Gibeah of Saul—the Lord ‘s chosen one.” So the king said, “I will give them to you.” 7 The king spared Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, because of the oath before the LORD between David and Jonathan son of Saul. 8 But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah’s daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Saul’s daughter Merab, [a] whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite. 9 He handed them over to the Gibeonites, who killed and exposed them on a hill before the LORD. All seven of them fell together; they were put to death during the first days of the harvest, just as the barley harvest was beginning. 10 Rizpah daughter of Aiah took sackcloth and spread it out for herself on a rock. From the beginning of the harvest till the rain poured down from the heavens on the bodies, she did not let the birds of the air touch them by day or the wild animals by night. 11 When David was told what Aiah’s daughter Rizpah, Saul’s concubine, had done, 12 he went and took the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan from the citizens of Jabesh Gilead. (They had taken them secretly from the public square at Beth Shan, where the Philistines had hung them after they struck Saul down on Gilboa.) 13 David brought the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan from there, and the bones of those who had been killed and exposed were gathered up. 14 They buried the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan in the tomb of Saul’s father Kish, at Zela in Benjamin, and did everything the king commanded. After that, God answered prayer in behalf of the land..(The Gibeonites Avenged; 2 Sam 21) Violence breeds violence. Our words will be judged in the day of Jesus. Now we have to defend an justice on our own. There would be still more blessing of God. Goodness knows all. With regards
fr Stanislaw Barszczak

Stanislaw Barszczak, Easter time,
You have no reason to listen to me, but may sigh and turn the page. But yet I have every reason to speak out. If this public confession of my innocent guilt lifts my spirits to the slightest degree, it will be well worth the loss of your esteem. You see, I am one of those who had done wrong while seeking to do good. There are millions like me in that, and most acknowledge no smallest trace of guilt. “My intentions were good!” Soon, one hopes, a great, blood-colored hand whose fingers are tipped with claws will close about them and drag them down to Hell. So it may drag me; and mine were good, though I scorn to offer that in my defense. It is results that matter in this world and in every other. My good intentions brought innocent hearts pain that will not end. Each night, once, twice, sometimes three times in a night, I rise and dress and go out to see if they are there. They are not, but would be if they could—poor simple little beings whose torment I began. Do you understand? Of course not. How could you? I will explain everything in order, starting with Wladimir.
I once paused in my daily walk and sat down on the park bench. The cool green of the park around me seemed too good to enjoy merely in passing, so I sat, pausing a moment first to thank the Creator for this rest in the midst of an Easter Sunday’s tasks. I momentarily forgot Mrs. Zofia K., who acted so superior and left a dime in the collection plate, the worries of the coming Sunday School picnic; I meditated on the glory of God and the miracle of the resurrection. I was a religious man with no hint of fear in my love of God. My meditations were not to continue long, as it chanced. The interruption was the sight of a man walking toward me. The stranger was strikingly tall; his figure gave the impression of both nobility and sadness. Here, however, all resemblance to Lincoln ceased. The stranger’s nobility was not that of the common man, but that of the superior one. He had a high forehead, flashing black eyes, wide mouth, and thin hawk nose. His clothes had a vaguely foreign cut, and he walked with a slight limp. It was, I thought, such a limp as might have been acquired in some battle encounter. Then I decided I had never seen a man who suggested so plainly the idea of exiled aristocracy.The stranger seated himself on the bench beside me and leaned forward, his head in his hands, and his hands on a worn but well cared-for walking stick. I was a shy man by nature, but the stranger looked such an interesting person that I could not resist the temptation: “I, er, I just love Easter Sunday. Don’t you?” I finally blurted. The stranger looked up as if cold water had been dashed in his face. “No.” A decisive answer. “No I don’t. It reminds me of my forced exile.” I noted I spoke with only the slightest trace of an accent. “A revolution?” I ventured myself. “Yes. But I was a revolutionist, not an autocrat.” His eyes flamed and met me squarely, and his voice continued: “My country was a dictatorship. He calls it a kingdom now, and plans on his son following him, but you must understand that there is no established line preceding him. The leader, or as he calls himself, the Master, started well enough. They all do, you know. Then he worked himself into a position that would be fantastic if it were not real. The peasants are taught that to doubt him is the most hideous crime. In fact, in the last analysis, it is the only crime. He pardons whatever a man may do if only the man will apologize for it, and, of course, affirm that he is willing to die for the Master.”The Stranger turned his head, a look of despair on his face. I felt I could hardly blame him. “Tell me about the religious life in your nation,” he asked, anxious to get hack on familiar ground.”There is little to tell,” said the stranger. “They worship the Master. So you see my crime wasn’t only treason, but blasphemy also. I knew I had little chance at the start, but my friends and I could stand it no longer. We revolted, a pitiful handful of us. Now we are exiles. The people of my homeland have been taught to think of us as depraved monsters. I shall never see the green fertile fields of my homeland again.” “Well, I wouldn’t be too sad, sir. No doubt your home is beautiful, but there are lovely sights over here too.” “You would not say that if you had seen my homeland,” snapped the stranger.
“Tell me, sir, are you a Trotskite?” asked the minister. “You don’t look much like a Russian.” “No, my home is more distant than Russia, and my rebellion greatly predates Trotski’s.” A half-smile played about the stranger’s lips. The conversation was interrupted by the sound of Easter bells from my church. The stranger arose with a start and hastily departed. A moment later I left also, reflecting on the stranger’s limp and concluding it was due to an artificial limb. His left foot, I had noted, clattered almost like a hoof when it struck the pavement. I was disappointed to hear he was not coming the next Day. Then it’s began to sully, tarnish his reputation again. And I heard he was named Wladimir and we expect to see you soon.
Now there is another story. Each year at about Easter time, I make the same resolution; but for you to understand, I must first tell you of my old friend Adam. I intend to employ that first name since it was his. There are so many Adams, and each person is apt to guess the Adam I mean, the first from the Garden of Eden. Certain members of Adam’s family are yet living however (a mother, a sister, an uncle, an aunt, and several cousins, I believe), so I shall assign to him the surname of Floating kidney. Its signification will become clear to you. Adam and I were (as I have said) old friends. I might as truthfully have called us boyhood friends, and we lived on the same street of the city. We were of an age. We were alike in being roaming, wandering into the city, hiking in the mountains, and without brother. We met at school, and after one, though we never quite abandoned each other. The truth is that each of us found the other useful. It was the custom in those days to require a boy to name his best friend. And then, cruelly, to investigate the matter with the boy named. Thus I specified Adam Floating kidney. I do it not maliciously. And he named me, however, timidly;; and neither of us lost face. In part in support of our own testimony, we met regularly once or twice a day to wander and for other game in each other’s company. For the city was not so large in those days that a determined boy could not ride his bicycle twice across it in a single evening, and the distance between our homes was considerably less than the half kilometre. Soon, indeed, I boasted my bike; and in what now seems a short time, we both owned ones. I said we met to talk, but I might better have said we met to fling my arms around Adam’s neck. I began it, I believe. He was always exceedingly proud of whatever he possessed: his geese were every one a swan, as the saying goes.
A marginal note here. I have the friend who is living now. His name John. His complacency and boasting were objectionable to me, I might have mentioned the matter to them or for that reason even ceased to visit him. But we meet at half-yearly intervals, most of ten near his Home and our church. He is correct. The fact was that earlier I did not find it objectionable, though possibly I should have. His latest possessions were often of interest — for he was something of a collector even then — and he took so much innocent pleasure in producing each and recounting to me the way in which it had come into his hands that I enjoyed his crowing nearly as much as he did himself. How well I recall the dubiously ivory chess set — the magnifying glass whose ebony handle bore S.M. in faded gilt, whose chipped and foggy lens John employed to burn his own J.G. into the birch grip of an old Finnish knife.
The years rolled by. With the triumphs and disappointments they brought to me, this brief tale has nothing to do; as for my boyhood friend, he became an astronomer — a discipline admirably suited to his largely nocturnal style of life — and an acquirer of a TV. Scientific conferences of one sort or another took him to distant cities, where he rarely missed the opportunity of rummaging through such shops as they afforded. I have heard that he sometimes bought whole stacks of volumes as you or I might a single book, paying a trifle more to have them mailed home; the boxes in which his acquisitions arrived might be stacked in his foyer, unopened, for years. Not in our city, but in the big cities of a world, he haunted sales and would buy any number of astronomical instruments, and toss them into his rusty van. As far as I am aware, that van was emptied only when it became too full to hold more. He had inherited his parents’ Victorian house, and it seemed to be his ambition to choke its room with birds and old instruments, papers of his own, and the dusty instruments of science. At the time of which I speak, he had nearly succeeded, On my increasingly rare visits, we had to clear a chair so that I might sit; and on the last, he grudgingly yielded his own to me and stood. That was three years past, and I never came again.
Thus I was astounded to find him at my apartment door so very early on the morning he died. His long sallow face seemed unchanged, as did his threadbare brown suit; but he carried a narrow carton embellished with golden foil, surely the kind that distillers of the best class provide at Christmas, I was with my mum, and his eyes held such a light as I had not seen there since they had first met mine across a shabby chessboard. His knock roused me from sleep; but I opened the door, and he handed me the carton, announcing that we must toast the dawn. I filled our glasses and said I was happy to see him, as quite suddenly I was.
“Good, good! Then you won’t flinch when I tell you I’ve fulfilled my life’s ambition — that I’m — hah! Potentially the master of the world”; he was stunned by my mother’s beauty.
“Hah. Right,” I admitted. He gulped half his drink and grew serious. “Know what I’ve been after? Do you? All my life?” I did not, yet I could see that he had found it.
“The heaven. Lord, the heaven. Hah! What a heaven! The one no one buys. Know what I mean?” I shook my head.”Oh,” I said weakly. “That heaven,” I showed a wide open window with a sky.
“Right! Didn’t know I was looking till I found it. Eight hundred and sixty-five thousand miles across, but I’ve reduced it to a little thing, so big.” “Blue cover on the astronomical observatory in India. “Certainly,” I told him. “Fabulous beasts with the head, wings, and legs of an eagle, and the hindquarters of a lion on the skies.” “Wrong! Not fabulous a bit. Spirits. Haven’t you visited Sumer? Hah! Or Akkad? What about Ur?” I shook my head. “No, Adam, and neither have you.” All over the walls. There is a big sun there — civilization — nuclear fusion, too. Hah! Tells everything you’ve wanted to know all your life. Remember the one-eyed men? Tried to steal the gold, half-blinded by the sun. Disturb the solar spectrum, in code. Lasted eighteen months once — long chapter. Chaldean, not English. Somebody left it there to get us started. Hah! I ran it through a computer.” God forgive me, I thought it was a joke, a game. I asked, “But this vision tells you the secrets of life?” He nodded solemnly. “Teaches you to read — thought I knew, hah! Didn’t. Music in your head, after you read that. How to tie shoes, write a check. How old before you learned?””Seventeen, I suppose.” “Liar! Twenty-five a least. How to get the girl, easy as snapping fingers — all the ways. Make friends, influence people. Sports — quarterback — Olympics. Coordination and balance, that’s all — anything your body can do. Hah! Meditation and exercises. Easy, really.”I think my look must have pierced his soul; he was proud, like all lonely men. Lonely men must be proud or die. “Show you. Have to go anyhow. She’s waiting.” He stood, swaying a trifle. “Dave…”
“Don’t fret.” He opened my door, then he went back home, I would have thought.
I live in a little city as I said. I rushed to look out. A red Jaguar idled at the curb. The lovely woman standing beside it appeared to be waving to me. “Like it? Hah! Snap.” Adam’s voice was at my ear. He was standing beside my window, upon nothing. “Got to go. Take care.”
Elas. Adam went at a brisk pace in a direction of a rail station. I cannot to give a detailed account of what happened. I wasn’t there. A train runs on rails. How slow the train goes! Suddenly it was an accident. A comission wasn’t called into being to investigate the cause of the accident. He descended on steps of air that only he could see; he had reached the third floor when dawn touched the sky and he fell. His house went to his sister, but she left his “library” to me, “my best friend”. Was it merely a notebook, written by hand? Did he pay someone to set type, as he surely paid someone else to bind or rebind it? Or did he create his book himself by what is called desk-top publishing? He seems to have owned equipment of that kind. His astronomical instruments are in storage now, for I lack the space for a tenth of them. Sometimes I go to the warehouse to open the crates and poke about; yes, still, especially at this time of year. And in my dreams I see him falling, and gniffins bent upon vengeance, bearing the treasures of the sun.
(based on the texts of Wolfe Gene)

2. Closely associated with a neighbor

How do a man come who is called the neighbor here? In considering this question it is impossible not to mention our lives. In short, there is in our pilgrimage toward death the phase of mature, that it can be called a wisdom. So, I am a different man, I do not still am a thoughtful or a daydreamed man¸ as if permanently haunting the monastery walls, but I’m me myself fully. In which concepts it can talk the neighbor? Emmanuel Levinas gives an answer on this question tirelessly, and the sites had been devoted to it in his books they belong to the most beautiful of all philosophical literature. There are the several points of what he is thinking about briefly that were presented here. First of all, saying the negative figures, the neighbor (in French there is a pronoun), it is not a generic element or species, he is seen as it were a human species; he is not the concept, no substance, he is not defined by ownership, by its nature, the social situation, by its place in history. Neighbor is not the subject of knowledge, an representation, a comprehension, he is not overcome. Neighbor is not subject to the description, there is no “phenomenology” of a neighbor. It is even wrong to say in this regard about his appearance, in these concepts of an explanation, in the terms that belong still more to the register of a knowledge and an expertise. What it can be said positive about him, therefore, about the neighbor of ours. It cannot include him in everything we know, so by a being as philosophers say, what do can tell about the neighbor who comes, moreover, not belonging to any world? Purifying our language, what remains? Neighbor is the “face” , there is not in the sense of face to be seen, the face that may prevail in a photograph or a memory, but the neighbor is the expression, like a prior conversation. The neighbor is “face”, that is at once a demand, a supplication, an order-injunction, a learning-advice. Hence the “face” obliges, demands of an answer, a support, a care, an effort, a pity, a compassion. Thus we are coming to the notion may be the most used by Emmanuel Levinas: a responsibility towards your neighbor. What it must say in contrast with M. Buber, Levinas’ the relationship with his neighbor is fundamentally dissimetric. It’s not a meeting between two people that is being located at the level of an equality, a friendship based on a reciprocity. The obligation of a self towards the face of our neighbor is not the result of the contract and is not freely chosen. Such an event as an arrival of neighbor to my life, it pulls away a self from his condition, and deprives from its persistence (ipseite) and it places a self on a situation infinitely obliging, vouching for someone. The figures of this dissymetre are numerous and often offer a sense of life for the most situations of everyday; Levinas’ “after you” of a politeness, a relationship to a femininity, a relation of son, an order for emptiness oneself, and a foreign that is not familiar, there are examples of the most simple. Sometimes the thinking of Levinas increases at the time more and more, to penetrate into a region he knows that there is an utopia; peculiarly in the problems concerning the death of another, the cost of sacrifice of my own life, a liability for fault, a culpability towards the neighbor, even if it haunts me (extreme formula that uses Levinas always directly). This mutation of care, a care for Self, the neighbor’s care, the subjectivity that is not already defined as a persistence in being, a taking over for yourself, and a domination, but rather as a servitude, coercion, subordination (sujetion), such Levinas’ “ontological return” constitutes true humanity of man.

3. The thirds and all the others

There is still another situation. From a one, somebody says about another, he is a self-made man. Isn’t caused this situation a selffeshness, he asks. On the other hand there would had been an error to believe that everything in a matter of my own it reduces to a relationship with his neighbor. We are often look on the package rather than at a substance, not at a solidity of gift. What remains it imagines the third and everyone else. But when you give yourself to a first newcomer fully(premier venu), it will be wrong for the next man. Hence, I must reflect, calculate, compare, “believe” at any occasion. Theory, knowledge, institutions, laws, orders of the first time, they find their right place at last time. Levinas is not an anarchist. Democratic state has its own role, to guarantee a justice. For Levinas nothing is more alien as a certain ecology (from a Polish cement mill it takes over the dried cement, then he is transported to Germany, but it has no toxic ingredients now, I read about this recently), which puts nature, forgetting the human society. Never the slightest a denigration of science and technology, the thinker says. The problems that can put a technics, they should have been considered as a surplus of technology, Levinas says sometimes. In this way, ethics must be renewed by science, through the institution and a policy. Europe is the Bible and the Greeks. Let’s note the originality of perspective here. Classically a state’s calling it analyzes as a necessity of order only that constrains the appetites for a power, because in the state of nature a man is wolf to man. Levinas gives to a law (la lois) another dimension: to establish, designate, to set a limit for the nobility toward the face of our neighbor. The generosity is so excessive not by forgetting the Self than by forgetting the third. There is therefore still the third movement. Institution in which we saw the necessity, it may be corrupted, and to forget its excuse (an improvement), and destroy what is human on the impersonal totality. We must remain vigilant when it comes to a jamming, in terms of human rights, specifically the rights of another man in his uniqueness. These rights, it shouldn’t poke fun at them by the abstractions of the system. First philosophy, ethics, philosophy is also the last: the organization must be criticized, continuously improved; the morality should control the state ultimately. As in Jewish law, in which the judge ignores the “faces” during an audience, but he still finds them in a way out. (Today, unfortunately, it ignores a life on the beginning of this millennium, we can show it with our fingers.) Levinas gives the ethics of the statute of the first philosophy (and last), but not only. The primacy of ethics in the thought of Levinas goes to addressing all of the theological reflection in a very strict sense of a similar determination. Mysticism, the sacred, to have a man by God (and “numineux”) are the only denunciations, chimeras, and sometimes, even with idolatry. Without dogma here. So, if Levinas is a believer or eteistą? In his view is absurd question philosopher replied: “We are far away from the ignoration (allaged)of the faces be the juish lawyer during an audience, but again finds its way out. (Today, unfortunately, ignores the effect of this millennium, we can show it with your fingers.) Levinas is not only the ethics of the statute gives the philosophy of the first (and last). The primacy of ethics in the thought of Levinas goes into a chasing all of a theological reflection in a very strict sense of this determination. Mysticism, sacrum, possessing of a man by God (and “numineux”), there are the only denunciations, chimeras, and sometimes compared here even with idolatry. Without dogma here. So, is Levinas a believer or atheist? In his view there is an absurd question. The philosopher replied: “We are far away from the alleged Spinozists, a alternative of which a believer-unbeliever is as so simple as a pharmacist, not pharmacist.”

4. God is beyond knowing and being

Levinas wants to swiveled out from this problem. He avoids for a notion of God the category of existence. God gets out of existence and is not subject of knowledge. God is not being, but somehow he was certified as the highest (supreme). Infinite God, you cannot say anything more about him, you cannot even identify him as a “necessary existence”. Levinas is not a thinker “religious.” The Thinker also wrote: ‘’Moral relation is combined simultaneously in a consciousness of the Self and an awareness of God newly. Ethics is not corolalium (added) of a vision of God. Ethics is the same vision …In the holy Arc, in which Moses hears the voice of God, there are the tablets of the Law only… But ‘God is merciful’, it means ‘Be merciful as God’ … To know of God, this is what should be done …So, pious it meens a fair’’ . The thinker of the twentieth century Rav Kook wrote: It do not sadden us when this or that he determines the structure of social justice without any mention of God, because we know that the only requirement of justice … is constituted by the outpouring of God’s the most brilliant (l’epanchement). This concept Levinas applied to the State of Israel. And the establishment of Israel’s existence and his calling have a meaning that goes beyond politics. At this point, for us so living, that do not require a specific philosophical competence, we give voice to a thinker: “The importance of Israel is not consists of an ancient promise, or the debut, that would be as a sign of an era of a material security… but on occasion that has been given, to fulfill the law (la loi )of a social Judaism finally. Jewish people were greedy of its land and its state, not for a reason of the independence without control, of which he has been waiting for, but because of his life’s work, which could finally begin to start anew. To this day this people meets the commandments, then he creates art and literature, but all these works, which were expressed as the schemes only, they had remained too long youth. Finally it comes the hour of a “dish of the day'(see-menu). It was also terrible (horrible) to be the only people who were defined by the doctrine of justice and the only one who could not apply it. Tearing, pain and the moral sense of the Diaspora. Conforming to your promises that articulates the importance of religion, as the resurrection of Israel in ancient times had justified the practice of justice a present time on earth.” It’s through that a political event has been completed, transferred. Levinas emphasizes the opposition between Jews here who are looking for a state for their justice and those who are seeking a justice for the living state(subsistance). For Levinas the religion is a justice as a cause for an exsistence of state only.

5. The obligation, the subjectivity, the answer, the brotherhood

I can’t endorse this scheme. Our security is imperiled again. Moreover Levinas do not aim at the reconciliation of philosophy and Judaism. His philosophical topics is guided by a proper logic, the invocation is an illustration of the Bible verse, but never a proof, even abundancy of “the garden of Scripture,” of the bible, with its peaches, pineapples and dates. The work of Levinas has been translated into numerous languages, was the subject of numerous works, became the subject of numerous works. Let us repeat the Jew passes that history abundantly using the verse of Bible based on the power and transcendence. Israel is greedy happiness to his life work could begin. The State of Israel, it is precisely such a justice. The state exists for such justice only. Then it follows a submission of the citizens to their state. State citizenship is based on subjective responses, brotherhood. To exceed the requirement in this State it must wake up the next generation of people in order to rescue the longest their individual freedom. “You do not demolish altars of the past, although you can one’s improve.” I am already bound by faith and personal sacrifice. Let us pray. Because we are the same, the prayer only changes everything. We have to work the human life can begin finally. Unfortunately nothing could be done to the next generation. Though we are together from time to time, it is nothing be done a man became both as a person and oneself. The most beautiful day in early May of this year Polish Episcopate has put on Cardinal Claudio Hummes, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy in charge. He will be a chairman of general meeting of Polish priests, who should have appeared at the feet of Our Lady of Czestochowa, Queen of the Fatherland, in prayer. May this prayer bring the expected fruit. Personally, I am for Christ, the Supreme Shepherd, for one flock for all people of good will, and not for the Cardinal Hummes , even Cardinal and Brazilian. But I want to see the brothers in the procession to the Black, the beautiful Lady. And now on the White Sunday for all the readers of me I wish a grace of the Blessed Virgin of Czestochowa, the greater blessings of God’s and of Jesus’ words of life, moreover to take things easy and not weakened good health.

4. Dieu est au-delà de connaître et d’être

Ce n’est certes pas que Levinas cherche à esquiver un problème. Cela résulte de ce que pour lui, Dieu échappe une fois pour toutes à la catégorie de l’existence et n’est pas plus un objet de connaissance. Dieu n’est pas un être, fut-il qualifié de suprême. Sans le savoir, Levinas rejoint par là un énoncé du Gaon de Vilna : de l’Infini, on ne peut rien dire ; on ne peut même pas le déterminer comme “l’existant nécessaire”. Même cette formulation, pourtant acceptée par la théologie juive classique, est ainsi dépassée. On a parfois classé Levinas parmi les penseurs “religieux”. C’est là à l’évidence une déformation. Non pas qu’inversement, il faille le faire figurer dans le camp des “laïcs”. Mais les catégories mêmes de “religieux” et “laïc”, prises dans leur sens habituel, sont des déterminations relatives à un domaine dont Levinas s’échappe, au dessus duquel il s’élève. Il n’est pas partie prenante à cette controverse. Certes il emploie souvent le vocabulaire de la “religion”, mais toujours en lui donnant un sens éthique, et cela, même dans ses écrits “confessionnels”. Ecoutons-le : » La relation morale réunit donc à la fois la conscience de soi et la conscience de Dieu. L’éthique n’est pas le corollaire de la vision de Dieu. Elle est cette vision même… Dans l’Arche Sainte d’où Moïse entend la voix de Dieu, il n’y a rien d’autre que les tables de la Loi… “Dieu est miséricordieux” signifie “Soyez miséricordieux comme lui”… Connaître Dieu, c’est savoir ce qu’il faut faire… »Le pieux, c’est le juste. Les textes de cette facture sont légion dans l’œuvre de Levinas. Comment ne pas remarquer à cet égard l’étrange convergence de Levinas avec un autre grand penseur du XXe siècle, le Rav Kook, qui, venu d’un tout autre horizon, se maintenait lui aussi avec fermeté au dessus des controverses mineures et écrivait : « Cela ne nous chagrine pas si telle ou telle structure de justice sociale s’établit sans la moindre mention de Dieu, car nous savons que la seule exigence de justice, sous quelque forme que ce soit, constitue par elle-même l’épanchement divin le plus lumineux… »Cette conception, Levinas l’appliquait sans ambiguïté à l’Etat d’Israël. Vivant en diaspora et “ne courant pas de risque quotidien”, il s’est toujours interdit de formuler des critiques publiques à l’égard de la politique israélienne, même lorsqu’elle lui faisait problème. Mais il y a beaucoup plus : l’existence et la vocation d’Israël ont un sens qui transcende la politique. Sur ce point, vital entre tous, et qui ne requiert pas de compétence philosophique particulière, laissons-le s’exprimer largement avec son langage d’or où chaque mot compte : « L’important de l’Etat d’Israël ne consiste pas dans la réalisation d’une antique promesse, ni dans le début qu’il marquerait d’une ère de sécurité matérielle — problématique, hélas ! — mais dans l’occasion enfin offerte d’accomplir la loi sociale du judaïsme. Le peuple juif était avide de sa terre et de son Etat, non pas à cause de l’indépendance sans contenu qu’il en attendait, mais à cause de l’œuvre de sa vie qu’il pouvait enfin commencer. Jusqu’à présent il accomplissait des commandements ; il s’est forgé plus tard un art et une littérature, mais toutes ces œuvres où il s’exprimait demeurent comme les essais d’une trop longue jeunesse. Enfin arrive l’heure du chef-d’œuvre. C’était tout de même horrible d’être le seul peuple qui se définisse par une doctrine de justice et le seul qui ne puisse l’appliquer. Déchirement et sens de la Diaspora. La subordination de l’Etat à ses promesses sociales articule la signification religieuse de la résurrection d’Israël comme, aux temps anciens, la pratique de la justice justifiait la présence sur une terre. C’est par là que l’événement politique est déjà débordé. Et c’est par là enfin que l’on peut distinguer les juifs religieux de ceux qui ne le sont pas. L’opposition est entre ceux qui cherchent l’Etat pour la justice et ceux qui cherchent la justice pour la subsistance de l’Etat… Justice comme raison d’être de l’Etat — voilà la religion. »

5. Le devoir, la subjectivité, la réponse, la fraternité

Il est légitime de se demander quelle est l’exacte relation de la pensée de Levinas et du judaïsme. A mon sens, ce problème reste essentiellement non résolu. Certes l’œuvre de Levinas ne manque pas d’indications précieuses à cet égard, mais elles se situent le plus souvent dans un cadre formel. D’un côté, Levinas ne vise aucunement à “accorder” philosophie et judaïsme et répond à Lyotard qu’il n’est pas un “penseur juif” mais un “penseur tout court”. Ses textes philosophiques et ses écrits qu’il qualifie avec humour de “confessionnels” sont publiés chez des éditeurs différents. Sa démarche philosophique se déroule selon sa logique propre, l’invocation d’un verset de la Bible pouvant être une illustration mais jamais une preuve. Cependant d’un autre côté, Levinas considère qu’une pensée philosophique s’enracine dans des expériences préphilosophiques et reconnaît à l’histoire juive de notre temps et principalement à la tragédie de la Shoah une place éminente dans l’orientation de sa réflexion. De même écrit-il qu’il a pu être inspiré, peut-être sans le savoir, par le texte biblique. En tout cas, il se voit comme descendant direct et proche des habitants du “jardin de l’Ecriture”. L’œuvre de Levinas est d’ores et déjà traduite en de nombreuses langues. Du point de vue strictement philosophique, elle a déjà fait l’objet de nombreux travaux. Répétons que l’histoire abondamment Juif que l’utilisation de la Bible fondée sur la puissance et la transcendance. Israël est avide de bonheur œuvre de sa vie pourrait commencer. L’Etat d’Israël, c’est précisément que la justice, d’être ainsi. Il vous suffit pour cette justice. Ensuite, la présentation ci-dessous pour les citoyens. la citoyenneté d’État est basée sur des réponses subjectives, de la fraternité. Pour dépasser l’exigence dans cet État doivent se réveiller la prochaine génération de personnes pour sauver la plus grande liberté individuelle. «Vous ne ruinez autels du passé, même si elles se sont améliorées il faut à ériger.« Je suis déjà lié par la foi et de sacrifice personnel. Donc, prions-nous. Parce que nous sommes les mêmes, mais la prière change tous. Pour travailler pour bon fin de la vie humaine il doit commencer. Malheureusement, il est la prochaine génération. Alors que nous sommes ensemble, les données ne sont pas créé l’homme à la fois personnellement et moi-même. Le plus beau jour au début de mai de cette année, l’épiscopat polonais a mis le cardinal Claudio Hummes, Préfet de la Congrégation pour le Clergé en charge pour celebrer la plus grave messe de cet fete. Prêtres polonais de tous les coins doivent comparaître aux pieds de Notre-Dame de Czestochowa Reine de la Patrie, dans la prière. Que cette prière porte les fruits escomptés. Personnellement, je suis toujours avec le Christ, Bon Pasteur, comme un troupeau de tous les hommes de bonne volonté, pas même avec maintenant le cardinal Hummes qui est Brésilien. Mais la reprise de la procession à la Mère Noire, la belle Dame. Et maintenant, que le dimanche blanc pour tous les lecteurs de notre journal réitére le souhait de soins de la Vierge de Czestochowa, la plus grande bénédiction de la présence de Dieu parmi vous des paroles de Jésus de la vie et aussi la constante santé.

Stanislaw Barszczak; The Priest and the Rabbi…

1. Finding the topic

Three years ago I once edited the book titled ‘The neighbor and he. The philosophy of Paul Ricoeur and Emmanuel Levinas, Czestochowa, 2008. I have considered there the thoughts of the philosophers above-mentioned in the subject person, entity, community. Some thoughts, however –as I constantly claim- require the new ) rapprochements, based on the people’s world around. Right at the beginning of this essay I wish to underline that we stand here for the world of values, that would be assumed by the next generation of human societies. And so with one hand, the sense of the person we see in a clarity of his example, but on the other hand, a person-a subject depend during of a time of the courts on the “power” of an current values of the unreal. To our great disappointment it emerges here an dependency of a subject from a necessity, that exists in the unreal realm of values, even for the twinkling of an eye. The value is independent from the object of cognition. The philosopher offered us a transcendent memory with the perceiving subject. We rely on memory in order to eject the subject and make its appreciation. Because the reality itself is not sufficient H. Rickert relied on the so-called a objective knowledge. Thus, true or cognitive thinking is something more than pure thought. Here the essence of knowledge lies in the act of issuing a court: confirmation or denial. Such an approach makes it impossible to base the knowledge on the transcendent degree. Since the act of knowledge is an act of evaluative knowledge, which includes what does not exist, the philosopher says about a property of the values, as a combination of the values with a reality. So, a man “is”, the values are valid. The subject without a value it remains incomplete. Only the presence of the values in the subject it produces a sense of certainty. In the space of thinking, Rickert says, must appear as some “an empty place”, a seat non-fulfilled. We want to fulfill this place by memory, which I note as non-giving up of a person of a floating, varying moods of his time, but as building all with a life’s testimony of my own. We have a perfect time. But today we become still a totally ruin of our lives. So, S. King is making such diagnose of it: “Once, not so long ago, a monster came to a town, “Aim in the eye, shoot the mind, kill the heart,” “Give me a choice, and I move ‘Midsummer Night’s Dream’ on ‘Hamlet’ in each period of time.”In the twentieth century Emmanuel Levinas, who has been knowing a magnificent master, Lord Chuchani, he opened before him the importance of the Talmud and the role of the approximation method to him, he wrote:” Good luck to gain the world, to descent as the son of this people in the right line, without to be based on any mediation! How good to be a Jew!”Although he said about himself that he is not a “Jewish thinker”, but was “just a thinker.” So we have pure a light of God of the Old Testament. But we live in a time more and more in the light of Jesus, which is no longer pure love, but a true love of Jesus. Saint Padre Pio after he showed totally, the victorious way of light of Jesus. Do not run here and there, but you should tie with Jesus, make an appointment with Jesus Christ the Saviour. Everyone had had a pearl in a life. But there is many people, who bring back the wrong way, there is a need to cooperate with Jesus. We are the same always, but just a prayer changes us, we must appreciate the offering, but more and more the sacrifice, said Padre Pio. Listen, there is a diversity of an overly abundance, then there are being creating the infrastructure. The period of three days of twelve-year Jesus in the Temple in Jerusalem is a very important. Stage of ignorance before him, and Jesus is growing. And after three days he won a mature stage. Such Jesus obediently strives to Nazareth, though he returns to Jerusalem. And we also must choose the path on a life(not one). Behold, the Lord believe me, goes with me, will forgive. You do not take the pharaonic bondage. So, pharaoh was disturbed in the birth of the people of Israel. In our days we also have a difficult condition of a discussion; the thinking it realizes on the emptiness, loneliness. R. Rorty argued that “although we are cobwebs of the beliefs and desires, but we do not refer to the truth, but to Christ himself.” In the world of the various declarations and the questions about, the nature of human identity has the sense of intricate also. In this article I would like very briefly to present the main thesis of Emmanuel Levinas’ books about our dying for one another and thus to stand near Rickert’s “blank space”, and at the same time because it is a high rate to present something new. So the “Subject or I”- from the position of neighbor, who knows which compels to, put, hold time, and he believes that the work of his life would finally begin wisely. For Heidegger’s ethics is the only way of being among others, and even relatively removable. Levinas gives ethics the statute of first philosophy, the ethics he means is not so a search for improvement and personal fulfillment, but the responsibility towards neighbor’s face (autrui), which it cannot avoid and there is the secret of his unity (unicite). Nobody can replace me in the practice of this responsibility. cdn

Stanislas Barszczak ; Le prêtre et le rabbin

1. A la recherche de la sujet

Il ya trois ans j’ai déjà édité le livre sous le titre : « Autrui et lui. Philosophie de Paul Ricoeur et d’Emmanuel Levinas », Czestochowa, 2008. J’ai présenter là les considerations des choisis penseurs sur sujet, personne, communauté. Certains pensées cependant imposent constamment de nouveaux gros plans, cela m’est venu dans la tête, basés sur tout le monde autour de nous. Dès le début de cet essai, je tiens à souligner que nous pouvons être ici en tant que meilleurs tireurs de la prochaines générations des sociétés humaines. Et si, d’une part le sens de la personne que nous voyons dans la validité de sa exemple, mais de l’autre coté la personne morale est soumise au cours, à ceux de la période de l’affaire devant les tribunaux, est soumise ses idées à ceux du «pouvoir» qui vient de la valeur de l’irréel. Il y a une certaine dépendence de la personne de la nécessité qui existe dans le domaine irréel de valeurs, même pour un clin d’œil. La valeur est indépendante de l’objet de la cognition. Le philosophe nous a offert une mémoir transcendant devant le sujet connaîssant. Nous comptons sur la mémoire pour éjecter le sujet et l’appréciait. Parce que la réalité elle-même n’est pas suffisant H. Rickert s’est fondé sur les soi-disants, sur « la connaissance objective ». Ainsi, la pensée vraie ou cognitive est en tout cas quelque chose de plus que la pensée pure. C’est là que réside l’essence de la connaissance dans l’acte de délivrance de la cour: une confirmation ou une infirmation. Une telle approche ne permet pas de compter sur la connaissance du degré transcendantale. Car l’acte est un acte de connaissance d’évaluation, qui comprend ce qui n’existe pas, le philosophe dit sur les valeurs comme des propriétés, comme une combinaison ceux avec la réalité. Ainsi l’homme « est » par exemple , mais les valeurs font valoir ses droits. Le sujet sans valeur demeure comme incomplète. Seule la présence de la valeur en sujet organisme à produire un sentiment de certitude. En l’espace de la pensée, dit-il Rickert, doit apparaître « un endroit vide ».” Nous voulons remplir ce lieu par endroits, avec la mémoire de ce lieu, qui je note ici comme un appel de mobilisation de non se subordonner de la personne, à cause de supprimer d’elle des humeurs changeantes de son temps, mais de construire tout le monde, de prêcher d’exemple pour tous, d’être les témoignages de la vie. Nous avons un parfait temps. Mais aujourd’hui, nous sont encore totalement ruine de la vie. S. King va à diagnostiquer: «Une fois, pas si longtemps, un monstre alla à la ville», «J’ai un but l’œil, je m’empare de l’esprit, Je tue avec le cœur »,« Donnez-moi un choix, et je déplacerai »Midsummer Night’s Dream» sur «Hamlet» dans chaque période de temps. “Au XXe siècle, Emmanuel Levinas, qui possédait maître magnifiques, Mr Chuchani, découvrant devant lui l’importance du Talmud et le rôle de la méthode d’approximation à lui, il écrit:« Bonheur de venir de ce monde, de descendre comme fils de ces hommes, en ligne droite, sans recourir à la médiation de quiconque ! Qu’il fait bon d’être Juif!” Bien qu’il a dit sur lui-même qui n’est pas un « penseur juif », mais«, mais un « penseur tout court ». Donc, nous avons la lumière pure de Dieu de l’Ancien Testament ici. Mais nous vivons à une époque de plus en plus avec la lumière de Jésus, qui n’est plus l’amour pur, mais l’amour de Jésus. Saint Padre Pio pourrait tout à fait viser à la lumière de Jésus dans la manière victorieuse. Ne pas courir ici et là, mais avec un cravate, il faut se lier avec Jésus, pour rendez-vous avec Jésus-Christ le Sauveur. Tout le monde avait une perle dans sa vie. Mais il y a beaucoup des hommes qui ramènent au chemin cahotan et nous pouvons s’arrêter à mi-chemin. Il est nécessaire de coopérer avec Jésus. Nous sommes les mêmes, mais la prière change tout, nous devons apprécier une offre, le dévouement, mais plus encore le sacrifice, dit le Padre Pio. Ecoute, il ya dans le monde une diversité de trop abondante, ainsi nous devont creer de l’infrastructure. Une période de trois jours de Jésus de douze ans dans le Temple de Jérusalem est très important. Stade de l’ignorance devant lui, et Jésus qui grandit. Et au bout de trois jours, nous avons un stade de maturité. Jésus s’efforce docilement à Nazareth, et puis retourne à Jérusalem. Et nous devons choisir la voie (pas une seul). Voici, le Seigneur qui me crois, va avec moi, pardonnera. Ne prenez pas de l’esclavage pharaonique. Pharaon a été perturbé dans la naissance du peuple d’Israël. Et nous avons une discussion difficile, la pensée, il se réalise dans le vide, dans la solitude. R. Rorty nous a fait valoir, bien que même si nous sommes toiles d’araignées, de croyances et de désirs, nous ne se dirigissions jamais à la vérité, mais à seul le Christe. Dans le monde de diverses déclarations, une question sur la nature de l’identité humaine a aussi le sens du complexe. Dans cet article, je voudrais très brièvement présenter la thèse principale du livre d’Emmanuel Levinas sur un autrui, qui vient à l’idée ici, parce qu’il y a il est premier de nous, qui est plus mort que vif maintenant. Nous voulons prendre lieu nouvel pour un autre type de “endroit vide” de Rickert. En même temps nous pouvons produir ici quelque chose de nouveau. Ainsi nous avons « le sujet ou soi » de la position du prochain – qui sait, qui oblige à, met, tient le temps, et il voudrais croire que l’œuvre de sa vie puisse enfin à bon definitivement commencer. Alors que pour Heidegger, l’éthique n’est qu’un mode d’être parmi d’autres et même relativement accessoire, Levinas donne à l’éthique le statut de philosophie première. Soyons plus précis. Par éthique, Levinas entend non pas une recherche de perfectionnement ou d’accomplissement personnel, mais la responsabilité à l’égard d’autrui à laquelle le moi ne peut échapper et qui est le secret de son unicité : personne ne peut me remplacer dans l’exercice de cette responsabilité.

2. Tenir compagnie a voisin

D’ou vient un homme dont ici nous avons parlé le voisin? En examinant cette question, il est impossible de ne parler de notre vie. En bref, il ya dans notre pèlerinage vers la mort phase de maturité, qui peut être appelée sagesse. Je suis un homme différent, pas un gentil ou définitivement hantant les murs du monastère, mais pleinement moi-même. Mais d’abord, question cardinale, en quel termes peut-on parler d’autrui ? Levinas répond inlassablement à cette question et les pages qu’il lui consacre figurent parmi les plus belles de la littérature philosophique. Voici, succinctement indiqués, quelques repères. Il convient d’abord d’employer des tournures négatives, d’exclure toute dénaturation.Je voudrais citer ici un homme qui soit un le plus proches des commentaires, le membre de famille de Levinas. Autrui n’est pas élément d’une espèce, fut-elle l’espèce humaine, n’est pas un concept, n’est pas une substance, ne se définit pas par des propriétés, par son caractère, par sa situation sociale, par sa place dans l’histoire. Autrui n’est pas objet de connaissance, de représentation, de “compréhension” ; on ne le “saisit” pas. Autrui n’est pas l’objet d’une description, il n’y a pas de “phénoménologie” d’autrui. Il est même impropre d’employer à son égard les termes d’apparition ou de dévoilement, termes qui appartiennent encore au registre de la connaissance et du savoir. Que dire alors positivement de cet autrui, évadé de tout ce que nous connaissons, de l’être, comme disent les philosophes, que dire de cet autrui qui vient d’un ailleurs n’appartenant à aucun monde ? Ayant épuré notre langage, que reste-t-il ? Autrui est “visage”, non pas dans le sens d’un visage “vu”, d’un visage pouvant se fixer sur une photographie ou dans la mémoire, mais expression, discours. “Visage” qui est d’emblée et tout à la fois parole, demande, supplication, commandement, enseignement. Et dès lors, le “visage” oblige ; il exige réponse, aide, sollicitude, compassion. Et nous arrivons ainsi au terme peut-être le plus employé par Levinas : la responsabilité à l’égard d’autrui. Chez Levinas, à la différence de Buber, la relation à autrui est fondamentalement dissymétrique. Ce n’est pas la rencontre entre deux personnes placées sur un pied d’égalité, une amitié à base de réciprocité. L’obligation du moi à l’égard d’autrui n’est pas le résultat d’un contrat et n’est pas librement choisie. La survenue d’autrui arrache le moi à sa condition, à son ipséité, et le place en situation d’infiniment obligé. Les figures de cette dissymétrie sont nombreuses et prêtent souvent un sens aux situations de la vie la plus quotidienne. Le “après vous” de la politesse, la relation au féminin, la filialité, la préoccupation pour le besoin du démuni ou de l’étranger en sont les exemples les plus simples. Parfois la pensée de Levinas s’exacerbe au point de pénétrer dans une région qu’il sait être utopique. Ainsi en est-il du souci pour la mort de l’autre au prix du sacrifice de sa propre vie, de la responsabilité pour la culpabilité d’autrui même s’il me persécute (formule extrême que Levinas nuance toujours immédiatement). Cette mutation du souci pour soi en souci pour autrui, de la subjectivité qui ne se définit plus comme persévérance dans l’être, accaparement et domination, mais au contraire comme sujétion, ce “retournement ontologique”, est ce qui, pour Levinas, constitue la véritable humanité de l’homme.

3. Le tiers et tous les autres

Ce serait toutefois une erreur de croire que tout se réduit à la relation à autrui. Car voici que se présentent le tiers et tous les autres ! Si je donne tout au premier venu, je lèse les suivants. Dès lors, il me faut réfléchir, calculer, comparer, “juger”. La théorie, le savoir, les institutions, le droit, congédiés dans un premier temps, retrouvent leur place. Levinas n’est pas un anarchiste. L’Etat démocratique a son rôle, garantir la justice. Rien n’est plus étranger à Levinas qu’une certaine écologie, lorsqu’elle magnifie la nature, oubliant la société des hommes. Jamais le moindre dénigrement de la science ou de la technique. Les problèmes que peut poser la technique doivent être résolus par un surplus de technique, disait-il parfois. Ainsi l’éthique doit se prolonger par la science, par l’institution, par la politique ; “l’Europe, c’est la Bible et les Grecs”. On notera l’originalité de la perspective. Classiquement, la vocation de l’Etat s’analyse seulement comme nécessité d’un ordre réfrénant les appétits car, à l’état de nature, l’homme est un loup pour l’homme. Levinas donne à la loi une autre dimension : fixer une limite à la générosité envers autrui, générosité devenue excessive non pas par l’oubli de soi, mais par celui du tiers. Mais il y a encore un troisième mouvement. L’institution dont nous avons vu la nécessité, peut à son tour se pervertir, oublier sa justification et écraser l’humain dans une totalité impersonnelle. Il faut rester vigilant pour empêcher que les droits de l’homme, ou plus précisément de l’autre homme dans son unicité, ne se trouvent bafoués par l’abstraction d’un système. Philosophie première, l’éthique est aussi philosophie dernière : l’institution doit être critiquée, sans cesse améliorée ; en dernier ressort, la morale doit contrôler l’Etat. Comme dans le droit juif, où le juge ignore les “visages” pendant l’audience mais les retrouve à son issue. Levinas ne donne pas seulement à l’éthique le statut de philosophie première (et dernière). Le primat donné à l’éthique dans la pensée de Levinas est tel qu’il en chasse toute considération théologique au sens prégnant du terme. La mystique, le sacré, la possession de l’homme par Dieu, le “numineux” (terme souvent employé bien qu’il ne figure pas dans la plupart des dictionnaires), ne sont que chimères invariablement dénoncées, parfois même rattachées à l’idolâtrie. Plus encore : on cherchera en vain dans toute l’œuvre de Levinas la moindre considération de théologie dogmatique. Levinas est-il croyant ou athée ? Absurde question à laquelle il sait répondre par une moquerie cinglante : « Nous sommes loin des prétendus spinozistes à qui l’alternative croyant-non-croyant est aussi simple que pharmacien-non-pharmacien. »

Stanisław Barszczak; Kapłan i Rabin, 2

3. Przedstawienia trzecich i wszystkich innych

To w każdym razie byłby błąd wierzyć, że wszystko redukuje się do relacji z bliźnim. Co pozostaje, to wyobrażają sobie właśnie
trzeci i wszyscy inni. Gdy daję się cały pierwszemu przybyłemu (premier venu) krzywdzę następnych. Stąd trzeba mi zreflektować, skalkulować, porównywać, „sądzić”. Teoria, wiedza, instytucje, prawo, wydalenia (odprawy) w pierwszym czasie, odnajdują (w końcu) ich prawe miejsce. Levinas nie jest anarchistą. Państwo demokratyczne ma swoją rolę, gwarantować sprawiedliwość. Nic nie jest bardziej obce Levinasowi, jak pewna ekologia (z cementowni w Polsce przejmuje się wysuszony cement, przewozi się do Niemczech już bez trujących składników- o tym niedawno czytałem), która podnosi naturę, zapominając o ludzkiej społeczności. Nigdy najmniejsze oczernianie nauki czy techniki. Problemy, które może stawiać technika powinny być rozumiane z racji na nadwyżkę techniki- mówił czasem Levinas. W ten sposób etyka musi się prolongować przez naukę, poprzez instytucję, politykę. „Europa to jest Biblia i Grecy”. Zauważamy oryginalność perspektywy. Klasycznie powołanie Państwa analizuje się tylko jako konieczność porządku powściągająca apetyty ponieważ, w stanie natury, człowiek jest wilkiem dla człowieka. Levinas daje prawu(la lois) inny wymiar: ustalić, wyznaczyć (zdecydować się na) granicę dla szlachetności w obliczu bliźniego, szlachetność staje się nadmierna (przesadna) nie przez zapomnienie Jaźni, lecz przez zapomnienie trzeciego. Istnieje zatem jeszcze trzecie poruszenie. Instytucja której ujrzeliśmy konieczność, może z kolei zdeprawować się, zapomnieć swojego usprawiedliwienia (swoje udowodnienie) i zniszczyć to, co ludzkie w bezosobowej totalności. Trzeba pozostać czujnymi jeśli chodzi o zagłuszanie, w kwestii praw człowieka, dokładniej praw innego człowieka w jego jedyności, żeby one nie znalazły się wyszydzone(wykpiwane) przez abstrakcje systemu. Filozofia pierwsza, etyka jest także filozofią ostatnią: instytucja musi być krytykowana, bez przerwy ulepszana; ostatecznie moralność musi kontrolować Państwo. Jak w prawie żydowskim, w którym sędzia ignoruje „twarze” podczas audiencji, ale na nowo odnajduje przez swój sposób wyjścia. (Dzisiaj niestety lekceważy się życie tego tysiąclecia- możemy pokazywać to palcami.) Levinas nie daje tylko etyce statutu filozofii pierwszej (i ostatniej). Prymat dany etyce w myśli Levinasa przechodzi w tropienie wszelkiego rozważania teologicznego w bardzo ścisłym znaczeniu podobnego określenia. Mistyka, sacrum, posiadanie człowieka przez Boga (i „numineux”) są tylko donosami –chimerami, czasem, nawet połączone z idolatrią. Bez dogmatyki tutaj. Zatem, czy Levinas jest wierzącym czy eteistą? Na to absurdalne jego zdaniem pytanie myśliciel odpowiada: „Jesteśmy daleko od rzekomych Spinozystów, dla których alternatywa wierzący- niewierzący jest tak samo prosta jak aptekarz-nie aptekarz.”

4. Bóg poza poznaniem i bytem

Levinas chce wywinąć się od tego problemu. Dla pojęcia Boga unika kategorii egzystencji, Bóg wymyka się egzystencji i nie jest przedmiotem poznania. Bóg nie jest bytem, ale niejako był kwalifikowany jako najwyższy(supreme). Nieskończony Bóg, nie można nic powiedzieć, nie można nawet określić go jako „egzystencja konieczna”. Levinas nie jest myślicielem „religijnym”. Myśliciel zarazem napisał:” Relacja moralna na nowo łączy się jednocześnie w świadomości Jaźni(soi) i świadomości Boga. Etyka nie jest korolalium(dodatkiem) wizji Boga. Ona jest samą wizją…W Arce Świętej, w której Mojżesz słyszy głos Boga, są tylko tablice Prawa…’Bóg jest miłosierny’ znaczy ‘Bądźcie miłosierni jak on’…Poznać Boga, to jest to, co należy uczynić…Pobożny, to znaczy sprawiedliwy.” Myśliciel XX wieku Rav Kook napisał: To nas nie zasmuca, gdy taka czy inna struktura sprawiedliwości socjalnej określa się bez najmniejszej wzmianki Boga, ponieważ wiemy, że jedyne wymaganie sprawiedliwości…konstytuuje się przez wylanie boskie najbardziej świetliste (l’epanchement). Tę koncepcję Levinas zaaplikował Państwu Izrael. Egzystencja i powołanie Izraela mają sens, który przekracza politykę. W tym punkcie, dla nas żywym i nie wymagającym kompetencji filozoficznej szczególnej, oddajemy głos myślicielowi:” Znaczenie Państwa Izrael nie polega na realizacji antycznej obietnicy, ani na debiucie, który znaczyłby erę bezpieczeństwa materialnego…ale na okazji w końcu ofiarowanej wypełnienia prawa (la loi) socjalnego judaizmu. Lud żydowski był chciwy, łakomy(avide) swojej ziemi i swego Państwa, nie z powodu niepodległości bez treści(opanowania), na którą czekał, lecz z powodu dzieła swego życia, które mogło w końcu się rozpocząć, zacząć na nowo. Po dziś dzień spełniał on przykazania; następnie tworzył sztukę i literaturę, lecz wszystkie te dzieła, w których się wyrażał pozostają jedynie jako szkice zbyt długiej młodości. W końcu przychodzi godzina na „danie dnia”(zob. jadłospis). To było zarazem straszne(horrible) być jedynym ludem, który definiuje się przez doktrynę sprawiedliwości i jedynym, który nie może jej zastosować. Rozdarcie, ból moralny i sens Diaspory. Podporządkowanie Państwa tym obietnicom artykułuje znaczenie religijne (niejako pismo rehabilitacyjne) rezurekcji Izraela jak, w czasach dawnych, praktyka sprawiedliwości usprawiedliwiała teraźniejszość na ziemi.” Właśnie przez to zdarzenie polityczne zostało wypełnione, przelane. Levinas akcentuje tutaj opozycję między żydami, którzy szukają Państwa dla sprawiedliwości i tymi, którzy szukają sprawiedliwości dla utrzymania (subsistance)Państwa. Dla Levinasa religia to jest sprawiedliwość jako racja bytu Państwa.

5. Obowiązek, subiektywność, odpowiedź, braterstwo

Levinas nie celuje w uzgadnianiu filozofii i judaizmu. Jego przejście filozoficzne kieruje się sobie właściwą logiką, inwokacja wersetu Biblii jest ilustracją, lecz nigdy sprawdzaniem, dowodem choćby nadobfitości „ogrodu Pisma”, z jego brzoskwiniami, ananasami i daktylami. Dzieło Levinasa zostało przetłumaczone na liczne języki, stało się przedmiotem licznych prac. Powtórzmy to, Żyd przekracza historię obficie korzystając z Biblii opartej na mocy i Transcendencji. Izrael jest chciwy szczęścia, żeby dzieło jego życia mogło się zacząć. Państwo Izrael, to jest właśnie taka sprawiedliwość, tak ma być. Istnieje Państwo tylko dla takiej sprawiedliwości. Wówczas następuje poddanie się obywateli. Obywatelskość Państwa zostaje oparta na subiektywności, odpowiedzi, braterstwie. Chcąc przekroczyć obowiązek w takim Państwie trzeba obudzić generację kolejną ludzi, by ratować najdłużej swobodę jednostki. „Nie burzcie ołtarzy przeszłości, choć sami macie doskonalsze wznieść.” Ja już jestem związany wiarą i osobistym poświęceniem. Módlmy się. Ponieważ my jesteśmy tacy sami, a modlitwa zmienia wszystko. Żeby w końcu dzieło życia ludzi mogło się zacząć. Niestety nie dane jest to kolejnej generacji. Choć stajemy się sobą, to nie dane jest powstać w człowieku zarazem osobie i sobie. W najpiękniejsze dni początku maja tego roku Episkopat Polski postawił na kardynała Claudio Hummes, Prefekta Kongregacji odpowiedzialnej za Duchowieństwo. Kapłani z całej Polski mają stawić się u stóp Matki Bożej, Jasnogórskiej Królowej Ojczyzny, na modlitwie. Oby ta modlitwa przyniosła spodziewane owoce. Osobiście jestem za Chrystusem, Najwyższym Pasterzem, za jedną owczarnią wszystkich ludzi dobrej woli, a nie za Hummesem choćby Kardynałem i Brazylijczykiem. Ale się wybieram z procesją do Czarnej, pięknej Pani. A teraz na niedzielę Białą dla wszystkich Czytelników naszego czasopisma ponawiam życzenia opieki Najświętszej Matki Częstochowskiej, większego błogosławieństwa Bożego, obecności pośród was Jezusa-słowa życia i niesłabnącego zdrowia.