Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: e stavolta quoto pure Chabad

http://www.chabadva.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1507393/jewish/Is-It-Okay-to-Celebrate-Bin-Ladens-Death.htm
Question:
Is it inappropriate to be celebrating the death of Osama Bin Laden? Is
that a Jewish value?
Response:
You've asked what I could only call a very Jewish question. For one
thing, it's so typically Jewish to feel guilty about rejoicing. Aside
from that, the wisdom of our sages on this topic runs deep and thick.
When do you know a wisdom is deep? When at first glance it seems full
of contradiction.
Let's start with Solomon the Wise, who writes, "When the wicked
perish, there is joyful song."1
Sounds pretty unequivocal. Until you find another statement of the
same author, in the same book: "When your enemy falls, do not rejoice,
and when he stumbles, let your heart not exult, lest the L-rd see and
be displeased, and turn His wrath away from him."2
The Talmud mirrors the tension. We find: "When the wicked perish from
the world, good comes to the world, as the verse states, 'When the
wicked perish, there is joyful song.'"3
. . . while in the same volume, the Talmud has already told us, "When
the Egyptians were drowning in the Sea of Reeds, the angels wanted to
sing. G-d said to them, 'The work of My hands is drowning in the sea,
and you want to sing?'"4
We aren't the first to note these paradoxes and more. Now is not the
time to list every resolution suggested. Instead, let's get straight
to the heart of the matter:
What is so terrible, after all, about celebrating the death of a
wicked evildoer? Why would you even think it decrepit to rejoice that
a man who himself rejoiced over the demise of thousands of others, and
connived ingeniously to bring destruction and terror across the globe,
should now be removed from it? Is it so horrible to feel happy that
the world has just become a better, safer and happier place?
No, it's not. That's perfectly legit. On the contrary, someone who is
not celebrating at this time is apparently not so concerned by the
presence of evil upon our lovely planet. Those who are outraged by
evil are carrying now smiles upon their face. The apathetic don't give
a hoot.
If so, when Pharaoh and his henchmen, who had enslaved our people for
generations--mistreating them with the utmost cruelty, drowning our
babies and beating workers to death--when they were finally being
drowned in the sea, why would not G-d Himself rejoice?
Simple: Because they are "the work of My hands." For this, they are
magnificent. And a terrible loss.
As another prophet put it, "As I live, says the L-rd G-d, I do not
wish for the death of the wicked, but for the wicked to repent of his
way so that he may live."5
For the same reason, Solomon tells you not to rejoice over the fall of
your enemy. If that's the reason you are celebrating--because he is
your enemy, that you have been vindicated in a personal battle--then
how are you better than him? His wickedness was self-serving, as is
your joy.
But to rejoice over the diminishment of evil in the world, that we
have done something of our part to clean up the mess, that there has
been justice--what could be more noble?
That, after all, was the sin of Bin Laden: He recognized G-d. He was a
deeply religious man--those who knew him call him "saintly." He prayed
to G-d five times a day and thanked Him for each of his nefarious
achievements. The sin of Bin Laden was to refuse to recognize the
divine image within every human being, to deny the value G-d Himself
places upon "the work of My hands." To Bin Laden, this world was an
ugly, dark place, constructed only so that it could be obliterated in
some final apocalypse, and he was ready to help it on its way. With
that sin, all his worship and religiosity was rendered decrepit evil.
So there's the irony of it all, the depth and beauty that lies in the
tension of our Torah: If we celebrate that Bin Laden was shot and
killed, we are stooping to his realm of depravation. Yet if we don't
celebrate the elimination of evil, we demonstrate that we simply don't
care.
We are not angels. An angel, when it sings, is filled with nothing but
song. An angel, when it cries, is drowned in its own tears. We are
human beings. We can sing joyfully and mourn both at once. We can hate
the evil of a person, while appreciating that he is still the work of
G-d's hands. In this way, the human being, not the angel, is the
perfect vessel for the wisdom of Torah

 thing, it's so typically Jewish to feel guilty about rejoicing.
strano. LA chiesa ci mangia sopra da 2000 anni, su questo fenomento
tipicamente ebraico...

Il 09/05/2011 10:37, נחום ha scritto:
 > 
http://www.chabadva.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1507393/jewish/Is-It-Okay-to-Celebrate-Bin-Ladens-Death.htm
 >
 > Question:
 >
 > Is it inappropriate
Quando gli emissari di Tolomeo XIII presentarono la testa imbalsamata di 
Pompeo a a Giulio Cesare, questi inorridì. E fece tributare ai resti del 
triumviro una degna sepoltura, con tutti gli onori.
fe...@delenda.net
-- 
http://delendanet.blogspot.com

 Quando gli emissari di Tolomeo XIII presentarono
quindi?


Quindi Cesare mostrava magnanimità, almeno con gli ex alleati.
Dopo due millenni, c'è chi si arrovella a trovare un angolatura decente 
per rendere meno grotteschi gli emissari di Tolomeo XIII.
fe...@delenda.net
-- 
http://delendanet.blogspot.com

 Quindi Cesare mostrava magnanimità,
questo, esattamente, che c'entra con Chabad?


Rischi di sembrare meno furbo dell'amico Fritz, sai?
-- 
Namib
"I should never have switched from Scotch to Martinis"
(ultime parole di Humphrey Bogart)

 Rischi di sembrare meno furbo dell'amico Fritz, sai?
perche'? Mi interessa, davvero, questo diacronico confronto bislacco,
volto a mostrare che osama sarebbe stato vittima di chissa' quale
semitica barbarie.

 semitica barbarie.
Gli emissari non saprei, ma i Tolomei erano greci, anche se con una 
preoccupante tendenza all'endogamia.
OBL, pare, è stato ucciso a sangue freddo. Suppongo che un trattamento 
simile a quello descritto con malcelato compiacimento nel primo capitolo 
di 'Surveiller et punir' da Foucault sarebbe stato più barbaro, sì.
fe...@delenda.net
-- 
http://delendanet.blogspot.com

 di 'Surveiller et punir' da Foucault
che era gay, nevvero? E anche questo mica puo' essere un caso.

 che era gay, nevvero? E anche questo mica puo' essere un caso.
Incidentalmente sì, però la nota su malcelato compiacimento deriva dal 
ricordo che negli ultimi anni era diventato un appassionato 
frequentatore dei club s/m di Frisco.
fe...@delenda.net
-- 
http://delendanet.blogspot.com

 frequentatore dei club s/m di Frisco.
wow. Sai proprio tutto, tu.

 ti ho chiesto quale e' il contrario di "semita"
qual è il contrario di verde?



 condottieri romani?]
Mica solo dei condottieri, anche se non è che ai tempi ci fosse il 
paradiso dei gay in terra come i soliti propagandisti tentano di far 
credere.
fe...@delenda.net
-- 
http://delendanet.blogspot.com

 Mica solo dei condottier
insomma, manco questo sai. O forse ti vergogni?

 paradiso dei gay
infatti non lo era. I rapporti omosessuali erano permessi solo con gli
schiavi, e solo se quello attivo era il padrone, perchè l'ideologia
imperiale non tollerava che un cittadino romano potesse essere
passivo, nemmeno a letto.

 schiavi, e solo se quello attivo era il padrone, perchè l'ideologia
ecco, da qui in poi diventa troppo complicato per febo. Si vede che
non ti intendi di nazi.

 passivo, nemmeno a letto.
mah, ai tempi di Cesare non c'era ancora l'impero, però se dici così non 
si spiegano ad es. le voci che giravano relativamente a storie tese con 
re ellenistici e futuri figli adottivi. O anche certi carmina catulliani 
tra i meno studiati al liceo.
fe...@delenda.net
-- 
http://delendanet.blogspot.com

 mah, ai tempi di Cesare non c'era ancora l'impero
l'ideologia imperialista, che non ha bisogno di un impero formalmente
chiamato così per esistere. Quanto alle storie citate, anche da noi
esiste letteratura (e letterati) omosessuale, ma non per questi gli
omosessuali hanno tutti gli stessi diritti degli etero