eXc: Nous aimons la liberté, l'état de droit, l'héritage des Lumières, la séparation de l'église et de l'état, l'humour. Nous n'aimons pas le fascisme, le communisme, l'antiaméricanisme, l'antisémitisme, le racisme, la bureaucratie, les totalitarismes. Nous estimons que le plus grave danger que courent les démocraties libérales est de céder à l'islamofascisme. Lire plus

RELIGION 101: La continuation de la religion par d’autres moyens (Assume the position: German website teaches migrants the missionary position)

Posté le mardi 8 mars 2016 par Admini

missionarypositionAttention: une position du missionnaire peut en cacher une autre !

A l’heure où le pape lui-même reconnait les bienfaits de l’invasion arabe à laquelle est actuellement soumise l’Europe et bientôt l’ensemble du monde occidental …

Et où en Allemagne un site officiel se dévoue pour expliquer à nos chers envahisseurs le BA-ABA de la mécanique et de l’étiquette sexuelle pour assurer la meilleure pénétration possible de ladite invasion …

Pendant qu’au Pays autoproclamé des droits de l’homme (sic), on continue de plus belle, entre tapis rouge et légions d’honneur, à danser avec les décapiteurs et lapideurs …

Comment en cette journée mondiale de la femme ne pas repenser …

A la fameuse position du missionnaire qui avait fait les beaux jours de nos chers croisés de la contreculture des années 60 ?



Laisser un commentaire


3 réponses à “RELIGION 101: La continuation de la religion par d’autres moyens (Assume the position: German website teaches migrants the missionary position)”

  • 3
    jc durbant:

    HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL (On peut toujours rêver)

    Nonetheless, Khorchide and other Islam experts are hopeful that the influx of Muslim asylum-seekers with an open approach to religion is an opportunity to promote a more ‘moderate’ Islam in the Arabic-speaking mosques…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3881194/In-Germany-Syrians-mosques-conservative.html#ixzz4ORIFgPeP

  • 2
    jc durbant:

    IT’S THE NORDIC ALCOHOL CULTURE, STUPID !

    Swedish authorities have been repeatedly slammed for their inaction. In an effort to look proactive they handed out wristbands with “don’t grope” written on them at the Bravalla festival. Several girls who were assaulted were wearing the wristband, which did not offer them much protection. Last month, an official report by Swedish police into the migrant sex attack phenomenon blamed “Nordic alcohol culture” and the “non-traditional gender roles” of European women for the growing problem. Migrants, the police said, might not be able to “handle the alcohol”, simply feel “horny”, have “ignorance of the consequences for the girls”, “have misplaced feelings”, be “expressing anger in this way”, or be acting due to “peer pressure” …

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/07/foreign-men-molest-rape-40-girls-swedish-music-festival/

  • 1
    jc durbant:

    Morceaux choisis:

    Présider la République, c’est ne pas inviter les dictateurs en grand appareil à Paris.

    François Hollande (janvier 2012, Le Bourget)

    On peut parler aujourd’hui d’invasion arabe. C’est un fait social. Combien d’invasions l’Europe a connu tout au long de son histoire ! Elle a toujours su se surmonter elle-même, aller de l’avant pour se trouver ensuite comme agrandie par l’échange entre les cultures.

    Pape François

    Quant au «miracle» devant être attesté, que peut-on en dire? A l’évidence, tout catholique respectable se tord de honte face à la grossièreté de l’arnaque. Une Bangladaise, Monica Besra, affirme qu’un rayon de lumière est sorti d’une photo de MT, qu’elle avait en sa possession à son domicile, et l’a guérie d’une tumeur cancéreuse. Son médecin, le Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, déclare que sa patiente n’a jamais eu de cancer et que son kyste tuberculeux s’est résorbé grâce aux médicaments qu’il lui avait prescrits. A-t-elle été interrogée par les enquêteurs du Vatican? Non. (…) Et nous voilà revenus à la corruption médiévale de l’Église, qui vendait des indulgences aux riches, tout en prêchant le feu de l’enfer et la continence aux pauvres. MT n’était pas une amie des pauvres. Elle était une amie de la pauvreté. Elle disait que la souffrance était un cadeau de Dieu. Elle passera sa vie à combattre le seul traitement connu contre la misère –l’autonomisation des femmes et leur émancipation d’une existence de bêtes de somme à la reproduction obligatoirement compulsive. Et elle était une amie des pires des riches, qui profita des biens mal acquis de l’atroce famille Duvalier en Haïti (dont elle ne cessa de louer le régime, pour faire bonne mesure) ou des largesses de Charles Keating, du scandale éponyme. Où sont allés tout cet argent, toutes ces donations? A sa mort, son hospice de Calcutta était aussi délabré que de son vivant –malade, elle préférera se faire soigner dans des cliniques privées californiennes– et son ordre refusera toujours l’audit. Il nous reste ses bonnes paroles: elle aurait ouvert plus de 500 couvents dans plus d’une centaine de pays, tous au nom de sa congrégation. Pardonnez-moi, mais s’agit-il de modestie? D’humilité? Le monde des riches a une misérable conscience et on aima souvent y apaiser ses tourments en envoyant de l’argent à une femme apparemment défenderesse des «plus pauvres d’entre les pauvres». Mais les gens n’aiment pas admettre qu’ils ont été nigauds ou entubés. L’avènement du mythe servit à leur donner une contenance, tandis que des médias paresseux préférèrent s’asseoir sur leur droit de suite. Si bon nombre de bénévoles partis à Calcutta en revinrent violemment désillusionnés par la raideur idéologique et l’amour de la pauvreté qui suppuraient des «Missionnaires de la Charité», leurs dires ne purent que tomber dans des oreilles de sourds. L’avertissement de George Orwell dans son essai sur Gandhi –que les saints doivent toujours être présumés coupables avant d’être prouvés innocents– fut noyé sous un flot de propagande pour cœurs d’artichaut et cervelles de piaf. Parmi les fléaux de l’Inde, à l’instar d’autres pays pauvres, il y a le chaman charlatan, qui dépouille le souffrant par ses promesses de guérison miraculeuse. Le 19 octobre 2003 aura été un jour merveilleux pour ces parasites, qui auront vu leurs minables méthodes adoubées par sa sainteté et la presse internationale leur dérouler plus ou moins le tapis rouge. Oubliées les règles élémentaires de la logique, à savoir qu’à allégations extraordinaires, il faut des preuves extraordinaires et que ce qui s’affirme sans preuves peut aussi être infirmé sans preuves. Qui plus est, nous avons assisté à l’élévation et à la consécration du dogmatisme extrême, de la foi étriquée et d’un culte d’une personnalité humaine des plus médiocres. Beaucoup plus de gens sont pauvres et malades à cause de la vie de MT, et encore davantage seront pauvres et malades si son exemple est suivi. Elle était une fanatique, une fondamentaliste et une imposture, et une Église qui protège officiellement ceux qui violent l’innocent nous montre, une nouvelle fois, quelle est sa position réelle en matière morale et éthique.
    Christopher Hitchens

    Mother Teresa, the ghoul of Calcutta. I always had real doubt in my mind as to whether there really was this saintly person. If you ask people why they think Mother Teresa’s so great, they’ll always say, « Isn’t it true that she spends her time always helping out the poor of Calcutta? » But if you really push them, they don’t know anything about her at all. They just take it on faith, as saints always are taken. So I went to Calcutta, actually for another reason. I thought while I was there I’d go and look her up, and I was rather appalled by what I found. She showed me around her mission and announced that the purpose of the mission to run the campaign in Calcutta and Bengal against abortion and conception. As it happens, I have my doubts about abortion. I find I’m very squeamish on the subject, but one thing that Calcutta definitely does not need is a campaign waged by an Albanian Catholic missionary against the limitation of the population. It rather, to me, spoiled the effect of her charitable work. She was saying, actually, this is not charity; it’s really just propaganda. I think the Vatican policy on population control is calamitous. So that aroused my curiosity anyway. It had been a bit of a disappointment meeting her then, and I didn’t like her manners particularly, either, as she went around among the poor. Then I found her turning up as the defender of the Duvalier family in Haiti, saying how lovely they were and how gentle and beautiful. I found her turning up as Charles Keating’s personal best friend in the Lincoln Savings & Loan scandal, taking a lot of money from his for a private plane, giving him blessings and crucifixes in return. I found her turning up in Albania where she’s a supporter of a very extreme right nationalist party. And quite a few other such things. I thought, hey, I don’t like any of these things singly or together, and, second, when does she ever get time for the poor old poor of Calcutta. She’s forever on some, « scumbag’s, » Lear jet going around cashing in on everyone else’s belief that she’s a saint. I think this is probably how medieval religion was worked. You took the faithful as credulous, and you reckoned that they would believe whatever you said. I don’t think it’s necessary for someone who is supposedly consecrated to the mission of charity and who’s world famous for it to ever have to beg for money. If she ever wanted it, she knows where to go for it. People would open their pockets and, I think, their hearts. The fact is, I don’t know if she got any money from the Duvaliers. What she was doing was defending them as a dynasty in Haiti, and everyone knows what the record of the Duvalier family is. She did get money from Keating, and I actually ask in my piece, you know, would she care, would anyone care to say that they know where it’s gone because she must have known or should have known that that money doesn’t belong to Keating and doesn’t belong to her. It’s stolen money. (…) But the fact is she was giving him in return various kinds of absolution in his campaigns, and I think this is because he started off life as morals cop. He was another of the prohibitionists who began his career as an anti-pornography person. She’s evidently, it seems, on call for people with dubious characters of this kind. I just thought it was worth pointing out. I can’t tell you the mail I got about it. If you touch the idea of sainthood, especially in this country, people feel you’ve taken something from them personally. I’m fascinated because we like to look down on other religious beliefs as being tribal and superstitious but never dare criticize our own.

    Christopher Hitchens

    Bashing an elderly nun under an obscene label does not seem to be a particularly brave or stylish thing to do. Besides, it appears that the attacks which are being directed at Mother Teresa all boil down to one single crime: she endeavors to be a Christian, in the most literal sense of the word—which is (and always was, and will always remain) a most improper and unacceptable undertaking in this world. Indeed, consider her sin: 1. She occasionally accepts the hospitality of crooks, millionaires, and criminals. But it is hard to see why, as a Christian, she should be more choosy in this respect than her Master, whose bad frequentations were notorious, and shocked all the Hitchenses of His time. 2. Instead of providing efficient and hygienic services to the sick and dying destitutes, she merely offers them her care and her love. When I am on my death bed, I think I should prefer to have one of her Sisters by my side, rather than a modern social worker. 3. She secretly baptizes the dying. The material act of baptism consists in shedding a few drops of water on the head of a person, while mumbling a dozen simple ritual words. Either you believe in the supernatural effect of this gesture—and then you should dearly wish for it. Or you do not believe in it, and the gesture is as innocent and well-meaningly innocuous as chasing a fly away with a wave of the hand. If a cannibal who happens to love you presents you with his most cherished possession—a magic crocodile tooth that should protect you forever—will you indignantly reject his gift for being primitive and superstitious, or would you gratefully accept it as a generous mark of sincere concern and affection? Jesus was spat upon—but not by journalists, as there were none in His time. It is now Mother Teresa’s privilege to experience this particular updating of her Master’s predicament.

    Simon Leys

    Since the letter from Simon Leys [“In Defense of Mother Teresa,” NYR, September 19] is directed at myself rather than at your reviewer, may I usurp the right to reply? In my book, The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa In Theory and Practice, I provide evidence that Mother Teresa has consoled and supported the rich and powerful, allowing them all manner of indulgence, while preaching obedience and resignation to the poor. In a classic recent instance of what I mean—an instance that occurred too late for me to mention it—she told the April 1996 Ladies’ Home Journal that her new friend Princess Diana would be better off when free of her marriage. (“It is good that it is over. Nobody was happy anyhow.”) When Mother Teresa said this, she had only just finished advising the Irish electorate to vote “No” in a national referendum that proposed the right of civil divorce and remarriage. (That vote, quite apart from its importance in separating Church from State in the Irish Republic, had an obvious bearing on the vital discussion between Irish Catholics and Protestants as to who shall make law in a possible future cooperative island that is threatened by two kinds of Christian fundamentalism.) Evidence and argument of this kind, I have discovered, make no difference to people like Mr. Leys. Such people do not exactly deny Mother Teresa’s complicity with earthly powers. Instead, they make vague allusions to the gospels. Here I can claim no special standing. The gospels do not agree on the life of the man Jesus, and they make assertions—such as his ability to cast demonic spells on pigs—that seem to reflect little credit upon him. However, when Mr. Leys concedes that Mother Teresa “occasionally accepts the hospitality of crooks, millionaires, and criminals” and goes on to say, by way of apologetics, that her Master’s “bad frequentations were notorious,” I still feel entitled to challenge him. Was his Jesus ever responsible for anything like Mother Teresa’s visit to the Duvaliers in Haiti, where she hymned the love of Baby Doc and his wife for the poor, and the reciprocal love of the poor for Baby Doc and his wife? Did he ever accept a large subvention of money, as did Mother Teresa from Charles Keating, knowing it to have been stolen from small and humble savers? Did he ever demand a strict clerical control over, not just abortion, but contraception and marriage and divorce and adoption? These questions are of no hermeneutic interest to me, but surely they demand an answer from people like Leys who claim an understanding of the Bible’s “original intent.” On my related points—that Mother Teresa makes no real effort at medical or social relief, and that her mission is religious and propagandistic and includes surreptitious baptism of unbelievers—I notice that Mr. Leys enters no serious dissent. It is he and not I who chooses to compare surreptitious baptism to the sincere and loving gesture of an innocent “cannibal” (his term) bestowing a fetish. Not all that inexact as a parallel, perhaps—except that the “cannibal” is not trying to proselytize. Mr. Leys must try and make up his mind. At one point he says that the man called Jesus “shocked all the Hitchenses of His time”: a shocking thought indeed to an atheist and semi-Semitic polemicist like myself, who can discover no New Testament authority for the existence of his analogue in that period. Later he says, no less confidently, that “Jesus was spat upon—but not by journalists, as there were none in His [sic] time.” It is perhaps in this confused light that we must judge his assertion that the endeavor to be a Christian “is (and always was, and will always remain)” something “improper and unacceptable.” The public career of Mother Teresa has been almost as immune from scrutiny or criticism as any hagiographer could have hoped—which was my point in the first place. To represent her as a woman defiled with spittle for her deeds or beliefs is—to employ the term strictly for once—quite incredible. But it accords with the Christian self-pity that we have to endure from so many quarters (Justice Scalia, Ralph Reed, Mrs. Dole)these days. Other faiths are taking their place in that same queue, to claim that all criticism is abusive, blasphemous, and defamatory by definition. Mr. Leys may not care for some of the friends that he will make in this line. Or perhaps I misjudge him? Finally, I note that he describes the title of my book as “obscene,” and complains that it attacks someone who is “elderly.” Would he care to say where the obscenity lies? Also, given that I have been criticizing Mother Teresa since she was middle-aged (and publicly denounced the senile Khomeini in his homicidal dotage), can he advise me of the age limit at which the faithful will admit secular criticism as pardonable? Not even the current occupant of the Holy See has sought protection from dissent on the ground of anno domini.

    Christopher Hitchens

    If Mr. Hitchens were to write an essay on His Holiness the Dalai Lama, being a competent journalist, he would no doubt first acquaint himself with Buddhism in general and with Tibetan Buddhism in particular. On the subject of Mother Teresa, however, he does not seem to have felt the need to acquire much information on her spiritual motivations—his book contains a remarkable number of howlers on elementary aspects of Christianity (and even now, in the latest ammunition he drew from The Ladies’ Home Journal, he displayed a complete ignorance of the position of the Catholic Church on the issues of marriage, divorce, and remarriage). In this respect, his strong and vehement distaste for Mother Teresa reminds me of the indignation of the patron in a restaurant, who, having been served caviar on toast, complained that the jam had a funny taste of fish. The point is essential—but it deserves a development which would require more space and more time than can be afforded to me, here and now. (However, I am working on a full-fledged review of his book, which I shall gladly forward to him once it comes out in print.) Finally, Mr. Hitchens asked me to explain what made me say that The Missionary Position is an obscene title. His question, without doubt, bears the same imprint of sincerity and good faith that characterized his entire book. Therefore, I owe him an equally sincere and straightforward answer: my knowledge of colloquial English being rather poor, I had to check the meaning of this enigmatic title in The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 1993, 2 vols.—the only definition of the expression can be found in Vol. I, p. 1794). But Mr. Hitchens having no need for such a tool in the exercise of his trade probably does not possess a copy of it. It will therefore be a relief for his readers to learn that his unfortunate choice of a title was totally innocent: when he chose these words, how could he possibly have guessed what they actually meant?

    Simon Leys

    In the late 1960s and early 1970s « the missionary position » became widespread as a technical expression for face-to-face man-on-top sexual intercourse. It was accompanied by standard (and undocumented) stories as to the origin of the expression, stories featuring missionaries and either Polynesians, Africans, Chinese, Native Americans, or Melanesians. By the late 1980s and 1990s the expression had become a core symbol in modernist and postmodernist moral discourses, appearing in dozens of titles such as The missionary position: Mother Theresa in theory and practice (Hitchins 1995) or (Un)doing the missionary position: gender asymmetry in Asian American Women’s writing (Kafka 1997). My book, tentatively titled Missionary Positions: Christian, Modernist, Postmodernist will examine published accounts of the origin of the expression « missionary position » and will provide evidence that the expression and accompanying legend originated in Alfred Kinsey’s (mis)reading of Malinowski.

    Robert J. Priest
















  • Notice: Undefined property: wpdb::$is_admin in /home3/baraka/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 684