Yessis n Teryel

Amuggar n Teqbayliyin - Forum des femmes kabyles


    The United States ....

    Partagez

    windejjatmeziant

    Nombre de messages : 64
    Date d'inscription : 01/06/2007
    04102007

    The United States ....

    Message par windejjatmeziant

    Azul,
    en lisant le commentaire d un lecteur du journal "metro" local d hier, je suis tombe' sur cette phrase qui m a laisse' songeur et a confirme' ma "juste" lecture de ceux qui ont fonde', les peres fondateurs, les USA (l administration d aujourd'hui ne reflete pas du tout l amerique que je connais. mon opinion bien sur).
    Voila donc ce que rapporte ce lecture qui cite le grand John Adams, un signataire du document de la constitution (je rappelle que son ETAT avait sa propre constitution qui date d avant celle des USA)... assez pour le preambule et je donne la citation:

    John Adams a écrit:The United States is not a christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation

    Les USA ne sont point une nation chretienne encore moins une nation juive ou mohammedane (au sens musulmane).

    je vais chercher dans quelle circonstance John Adams a ete amene' a profere' cette citation. Elle me laisse songeur et me fait dire:

    The kabyle nation is not a christian nation any more than it is a Jewish nation or Mohammedan. Simply a Kabyle Nation, no more no less!
    Voila qui arracherait un sourire complice a mon feu pere ...
    Partager cet article sur : Excite BookmarksDiggRedditDel.icio.usGoogleLiveSlashdotNetscapeTechnoratiStumbleUponNewsvineFurlYahooSmarking

    Message le Ven 5 Oct - 13:33 par windejjatmeziant

    Voila un lien qui explicite ce choix dans la fondation d une nation seculaire.
    Il nous faudra des "Ben Franklin, John Adams, et jefferson" kabyle pour mener a bien l instauration d un etat Kabyle.

    J ai constate' un parallel fort interessant entre la lutte des paysans-patriotes americains contre la couronne d angleterre et la lutte de notre peuple kabyle contre le colonialisme nouveau qui a suivi l independance confisque'e de l ete 62.

    Amateur d anglais, vous etes servis:
    http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

    en guise de cadeau, je vous copie cet extrait de John Adams:

    "The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first
    example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and
    if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of
    artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider
    this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the
    formation of the American governments is at present little known or
    regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an
    object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons
    employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any
    degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon
    ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will
    forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by
    the use of reason and the senses.

    admirez le sarcasme de John Adams dans le choix de ses mots:"...had interviews with the gods...". Simplement d un autre monde!

    y en a d autres qui sont vraiment interessants concernant le christianisme, surtout si l on transpose ces propos a l avenement islamiste de ces 30 dernieres annees.

    Si le temps le permet, je me ferais un plaisir d essayer de traduire certains passages. Mais ne vous genez pas a le faire si vous avez le temps... je prefere a vrai dire reecrire ces textes en kabyle.

    Message le Ven 5 Oct - 13:36 par windejjatmeziant

    je n oublie pas les femmes... car je sais qu a Concord, elles ont eu leur mot a dire dans le soulevement contre l armee de la couronne d angleterre. Il faudra pour cela consulter les references (la seule que j ai est verbale rapportee par un volontaire dans un site historique sur la revolution).

    salutations revolutionnaires pour faire echo justement a la republique de Timoujgha.

    Message le Sam 6 Oct - 9:19 par iflis

    " J ai constate' un parallel fort interessant
    entre la lutte des paysans-patriotes americains contre la couronne d
    angleterre et la lutte de notre peuple kabyle contre le colonialisme
    nouveau qui a suivi l independance confisque'e de l ete 62. "


    Win-d-tejja tmezzyant
    Haaha
    Tu fais reference aux RedNeck ou Hillbillies des Rockies?? Surprised 0)
    Tiens, ca me rappelle les quelques vers d'une chanson (American way of life). Madonna I think!


    I'd like to express my extreme point of view
    I'm not Christian and I'm not a Jew
    I'm just living out the American dream
    And I just realised that nothing
    Is what it seems

    Message le Sam 6 Oct - 13:18 par windejjatmeziant

    Azul a y-iflis,

    je parlais de ceux qui ont conc,u la constitution americaine (John Adams, Ben Franklin, jefferson) et non de celui qui la viole depuis 2000. Nuance... n laajev!

    quand a Madona, elle s adonne a la nobilite' de chateau... l age oblige?

    Ce qui m interesse c est de comprendre le psyche' de John Adams, ben Franklin et leurs associes qui ont elabore' la base d une nation qui a fait des miracles... Depuis, bien sur, les derapages se sont produits n empeche que les textes sont la et une correction s impose tous les 4 ans sinon au maximum tous les 8 ans au niveau de l executif, 6 ans pour le senat et 2 ans pour la "house of representatives". Que dire bien sur d une justice independante (y a toujours des imperfections mais il faut bien casser des oeufs pour faire l omelette, le vote qui a fait elire bush en 2000)?

    je te salue :-)

    W.

    Message le Dim 7 Oct - 14:18 par iflis

    Salut W.
    Celui qui est la aujourd'hui ne viole aucune regle. Celui d'aujourd'hui fait plus de bruit que les precedents, mais les US restent les US avec ou sans lui.

    Je me joins a ta question a propos de l'etat d'esprit de Washington, Franklin...etc qui se sont opposes aux regles de la courronne Brittish protestante. Eux memes etaient Protestants....
    La premiere nation/gouvernement Us etait Protestante.

    - J'ai pense aux RedNeck et aux Hillbillies et meme aux "Hicks", car les Hillbillies renvoient a l'origine a une armee de Catholiques, les RedNeck sont encore des opposants impenitents a l'idee de l'etat/nation Americaine telle quelle. Ils en existe encore du cote des grandes prairies Canadiennes, mais ceux d'ici se definissent de traditions "payasannes, proprietaires de Ranch et eleveurs". Mais eux n'ont role substantiel dans la fondation de la nation Americaine.
    Les "Founding Fathers" sont protestants.

    Message le Lun 15 Oct - 8:11 par windejjatmeziant

    azul a yiflis bwawal (dans les sens le "tailladeur de la langue kabyle", notre "in house" grammairien. Je te reconnais beaucoup d autres qualite's bien sur :-)).

    Je voudrais revenir justement sur ce que tu avances que
    iflis a écrit:"Les "Founding Fathers" sont protestants."

    Ce matin, j ai eu la chance de tomber sur cet article qu un pigiste americain, que j apprecie enormement, a ecrit sur jutement le sujet de ce thread (les USA is not a christian Nation). C est en anglais.
    Ils etaient Deists (adherents au deism -croire en un Dieu). Tout comme eux, je crois en un DIeu qui n a besoin ni de toit et surtout pas de publications (3 au total, un ecrivain pas prolifique du tout).
    je poste donc l article en guise de good morning. Je souhaite que l on se voit bientot.
    W.

    J ai autant que vous, et surtout Madame la maitresse des lieux, horreur des textes fleuves... mais je vous assure que cette lecture, pour ceux qui maitrisent l anglais, vaut son pesant d or. Je vous la poste telle qu elle est au risque d egratigner certains dans le sens "texte fleuve". Il est clair qu un resume' s impose... c est sur.. autour d un cafe' un de ses jours... ou un bon vin ... (comment cela se fait il que les kabyles n ont pas pense' a produire du vin?)

    James Carroll

    Religion and nation

    By James Carroll | October 15, 2007

    ONE OF MY proudest boasts as a schoolboy was an
    ability to both identify and spell what my teacher insisted was the
    English language's longest word: antidisestablishmentarianism. I had,
    of course, no idea what it meant. Now I know that it defines the
    political third rail onto which John McCain threw himself when he
    recently said that the United States was established as a "Christian
    nation."
    No, it wasn't! Or so answered a chorus of critics, heading off an
    inevitable denigration of minority religions - and no religion. The
    disestablishmentarians always point out that the Constitution nowhere
    mentions God, and that the founders were Deist gentlemen whose God was
    so impersonally detached from history as to be not recognizably
    Christian at all. The framers of the American political system,
    appalled by what "establishment" had led to in Europe, took pains to
    set their government on a religiously neutral path.

    But government is not nation. Just because McCain's assertion is
    dangerous - as I believe it to be - does not mean it is untrue. For one
    thing, what the founders intended may weigh less than how the nation
    developed over the next two centuries. The Constitution created "an
    open national space," in the scholar Mark Noll's phrase, but, Noll
    says, instead of it being filled with Alexander Hamilton's economic
    planning, Thomas Jefferson's yeomanry, or John Adams's communalism,
    that space was seized by unexpected 19th-century "awakenings" of
    evangelical fervor.

    Christian religion, from prairie preachers to
    elite universities, became the main "arbiter of national culture."
    Eventually, Protestant revivalism, immigrant Catholicism, and
    African-American Gospel jelled into the public zealotries of "civil
    religion," a term coined by Robert Bellah in 1967 when such religion
    braced the nation - and the government - in its contest with "atheistic
    Communism." Jewish participation in this implicitly Christian consensus
    was necessarily uneasy. When Dwight D. Eisenhower underwent baptism in
    the White House 12 days after his inauguration in 1953, he showed how
    these pressures could squeeze the national leadership. This was the era
    of Billy Graham's "Crusade," a word Ike himself had used to define his
    war making.

    The danger in mixing religion and nation lies in the
    way these two enterprises have exploited one another, each to advance
    its separate cause. This is as old as the early-4th-century emperor
    Constantine, who used Christian orthodoxy as a club with which to
    enforce political control of his vast empire. (The Nicene Creed was a
    loyalty oath composed at his order, by the Council of Nicea in 325.) At
    the same time, Christian leaders happily enlisted Constantine's legions
    to suppress heresy. When the word "Christian" is used today, the broad
    movement it defines owes as much to Constantine as it does to Jesus
    Christ.

    Even pious Americans have been properly wary of efforts
    to use state power to enforce uniformity of conscience. The vaunted
    separation of church and state is a minimal protection from such abuse,
    but civil religion points to a need for the broader separation of
    religion and nation. That protection comes not from law, but from the
    knowledge of citizens, which is unreliable. The fact that, since the
    founding of the United States, Christianity has been much used, against
    the intentions of the founders, to justify governmental impositions and
    adventures is one cause for concern. That is what McCain's critics warn
    of, in the name of a better America. The last thing needed today is a
    Christian nation embarked on a new crusade, at home or abroad.

    But a warning must be sounded in the name of a better Christian religion,
    too. What's bad for the state can be worse for the church. Jews,
    Muslims, Hindus, and all religious minorities are assaulted by even
    implicit claims of a "Christian nation," but so are Christians. A
    government that blesses itself in the name of Jesus Christ, while
    waging war and advancing empire, must first demolish the meaning of who
    that man was - three centuries before Constantine.

    Scholars know
    very little about this Galilean rabbi (nothing, for example, about his
    attitude toward homosexuality), but there are two things that can be
    said with certainty. Jesus lived and died in resistance to the Roman
    empire. And Jesus rejected violence. If there are two notes of identity
    that go to the heart of what America has become, they are violence and
    empire. A Christianity that makes its peace with those, as has so often
    happened, is an apostate religion. John McCain, and the objects of his
    appeal, betray the nation - and the faith.

    James Carroll's
    column appears regularly in the Globe.© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

    Message  par Contenu sponsorisé


      La date/heure actuelle est Sam 19 Aoû - 8:54