Just found an article about an University Professor who says the "alliance among civilizations"-Project is a deception. The title says:
"Israeli Elie Barnavi rejects alliance of civilizations as a deception"
First I was happy, because yes, I would sign that too.
But: it turns out his words are much more dangerous than all we heard before in that regard, as the Professor is - knowingly or unknowingly - twisting things a lot.
As Professor of history of the modern West at the University of Tel Aviv,
Elie Barnavi was Israel's ambassador to France from 2000 to 2002.
He now heads the Scientific Committee of the Musée de l'Europe in Brussels.
In his book "Les religions meurtrières "/which can be translated into
"DEADLY RELIGIONS" Barnavi explains the origins of terrorism in religious basis.
In a series of brief and argued theses he draws the historical and cultural context of religion, politics in general. It helps to understand why the temptation fundementalism is revolutionary stronger today in Islam and attempts to identify ways of combating it.
Barnavi's reasons for claiming that the Alliance is a deception are not the same as mine.
Watch out! it can get confusing:
He says, that the dialogue among civilizations is a deception, because there are two different types of people:
-The first group are the civilized, moderate secularists where dialogue is possible.
-To the second belong people who represent barbarism in form of religion.
The interesting thing is, that Barnavi places the people who want an Alliance of civilizations into the second group (the "barbaric" one).(sic!)
And after Barnavi these two groups could never meet.
This is excact the type of intolerance we know from the very own reports of the Alliance of Civilizations. But in his twist, Barnavi says that the AoC-people and for him here first and foremost the Muslims, belong to the group of UNcivilizised people, because they are too religious and as such he rejects their ideas,
as after him among barbars a dialogue would never be possible.
So he does not regard Erdogan and Zapatero as secularists but more as representatives of religious systems who try to start a dialogue among religions.
Bernavi says such dialogue is not needed, as most of the religious people are fundamentalists anyway and therefore dangerous and have to be treated as possible terrorists.
Nice twist Prof.Bernavi, but that's excatly NOT what the Alliance of Civilizations is about.
The opposite is true, the AoC are to fight fundamentalism and you should know it.
So, they are in the same boat with you, Mr. Barnavi. If one replaces Bernavi's expression "alliance of civilizations" with the term "fundamentalists" and Bernavis expresseion "secularists" with the term "alliance of civilisation" the picture becomes more clear.
Shocking are his consequenses:
" To combat violent fundamentalism,
he has voiced his support for both the military and police, who are 'quite well',".
Death is lurking around the corner.
Yes, Mr. Barnavi, Religion is deadly and cannot save you.
It's deadly when its loosing it's center and becomes an empty shape and keeping you trapped in rituals in search of enlightement.
It's deadly when the aim is to come back to God on one's own power, the endaveour to become God. Or to become morally good in secularist terms.
As such religion is dead and deadly.
But the Living God is not dead. He is the way for true life, not death.
So Professor Barnavi you may combat the Alliance of Civilizations,
but please do not combat the Living One. That would be a deadly endaveour.
And please do not mix these two antipodes in creating a third position.
As such it looks as the AoC -Beast invented an even more secular opposition to make their own endeveaur looking such more religious....just like a religious lamb.
The trick says:
"If you place an even more agressive and secularist mouth besides this religious "lamb" that we name AoC, then this would make people forget that the AoC-"lamb" speaks actually like a dragon and makes war for the saints"
"11Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth.
He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon."
Do not be deceived brothers and sisters.
The deception is not, that the Alliance of civilizations is too much believing, too fundamentalistic and as such in danger of spreading terrorism.
Fact is, that it's against the believers of a sole truth and with this waging war not against the secularists as Barnavi claims, but against the saints.
(Here I attach the twisting article I refered to, translated from the Spanish original, take care! :)
"The Israeli university professor Elie Barnavi explained today that he is not in favour of the alliance of 'civilization' which promotes the president of the Spanish government, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, because it is a 'deception'.
"Civilizations do not exist, I do not know civilizations, no one can speak on my behalf to talk about' my civilization '... I do not feel represented,' he emphasized in the presentation of his' book "RELIGIONS DEADLY'.
Bernavi, which has been declared a non-believer, has stated that he does not feel a different civilization that the Catholic or Muslim moderates, with whom they can share the same taste for freedom. 'There exists civilization and barbarism, and between the two, there is no dialogue possible,' said Bernavi in the book.
'Secularism should not be exported nor democracy, which constitutes it. Then, he divides between societies who respect secularism, namely freedom, and those that do not even understand what that means, who invented the 'dialogue of civilizations'. This is a bait because what can we talk in these sessions' dialogue 'in which rival hypocrites amabilidades(?)'.
Bernavi also believes that multiculturalism is another 'deception' because not all cultures are respected and that live in a society requires a common basis of rules and values, which makes it possible to secularism, said.
The author deals with the phenomenon of the political dimension of religion, religion made political activist, ie. fundamentalism or terrorism with revolutionary fundamentalism and intolerance.
It showed that the 'political' Islamist can seize power in Muslim states, not in Europe.
In Europe, the danger is the 'self-censorship' and prohibitions for fear of the consequences, which means a regression politics and morality, and the risk that moderates falling into extremist networks.
'There we win this fight without moderate Muslims in the West,' without an 'alliance' with non-Islamists or revolutionary, said.
To combat violent fundamentalism, he has voiced his support for both the military and police, who are 'quite well', as education is defined as the 'neutralization of the school', which have opposed the Muslim veil in the colleges."
LINK to the translated version
see also this translated French article of HIM, naming him a "wise man": LINK