Entries Tagged 'Reflexion' ↓

 

I came to know the term Electrosmog on reading Joel de Rosnay recent paper, le carrefour du future, on Colony Collapse Disorder (or CCD). It is a poorly understood phenomenon involving the massive die-off of a beehive or bee colony.

It is frightening to read the Apocryphal quote: A chilling prediction about the importance of bees to mankind popular in the press recently is “If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man.” This quote has been attributed to Albert Einstein, however the original source for this quote has not been reported and the earliest known use of the quote is from 1994.

At the same time I was fascinated to read the pages of Wikipedia on the subject. I am feeling guilty to use my mobile phone now.

 

 

Ma semaine passée était marquée par une rencontre de Cadres Chrétiens à laquelle   j’ai tenu à y assister. Grande fut ma surprise de voir le nombre restreint de l’assistance ce vendredi soir. Nous n’étions que 7 présents.

L’agenda de la rencontre était  d’avoir une réflexion sur les évènements que nous vivons dans le pays en ce moment, dans l’optique de la lettre Pastorale de Mgr. Piat.

 Voyons nous une espérance chrétienne ? Comment pouvons nous être signes et témoins de cette espérance chrétienne dans ces moments de difficultés?

Le petit nombre permit des échanges intimes et approfondis. C’était une occasion de faire connaissance avec des gens que je n’avais jamais rencontré et surtout d’ecouter leur préoccupations,  appréhensions, angoisses, solutions, possibles denouements de la conjoncture  difficile actuelle du pays. Nous avons beaucoup parlé de la misère de la population des pauvres, de la ségrégation raciale marquante, étirements du tissu social du pays, et des effets pervers apportés par la politisation des tous les secteurs de l’économie. Eric Desjardin, animateur des Cadres Chrétiens, nous fit lecture d’un article de Lindsay Riviere : Risques et périls, paru dans le journal « l’express » qui résume bien le tableau plutôt sombre de la situation économique et sociale du moment.

Où est l’espérance Chrétienne dans tout cela ?

La fête de l’ascension de Jésus, que l’église nous propose ce dimanche, m’a fourni pas mal de réflexions sur cette espérance. Certes, les apôtres  étaient revitalisés de revoir le Messie après sa passion et mort sur la croix. Ils avaient probablement été boostés par Sa présence. Et maintenant à Bethanie, de le voir partir encore une fois devrait renouveler l’angoisse et le sentiment de perte. Tout au contraire, Luc nous signale «Tandis qu’il les bénissait, il se sépara d’eux et fut emporté au ciel. Ils se prosternèrent devant lui, puis ils retournèrent à Jérusalem, remplis de joie. »

Comment et pourquoi donc ?

Le fait d’etre remplis de cette espérance que Jésus leur a donné, a fait nul doute, la différence.

La lecture de St Grégoire qui vit 1500 ans de cela m’a également éclairé sur cette espérance. Fort de ce don d’espérance je suis certain d’affronter les vicissitudes de ma vie.

« Voilà, mes frères, ce qui doit guider votre action ; pensez-y continuellement. Même si vous êtes ballottés dans le remous des affaires de ce monde, jetez pourtant dès aujourd’hui l’ancre de l’espérance dans la patrie éternelle (He 6,19). Que votre âme ne recherche que la vraie lumière. Nous venons d’entendre que le Seigneur est monté au ciel ; pensons sérieusement à ce que nous croyons. Malgré la faiblesse de la nature humaine qui nous retient encore ici-bas, que l’amour nous attire à sa suite, car nous sommes sûrs que celui qui nous a inspiré ce désir, Jésus Christ, ne nous décevra pas dans notre espérance. » St Grégoire.

 

This posting is not for the zapper reader as it is a rather long one. It caused some deep reflexion on my part when I read the text as it addresses some very contemporary subjects. Do take some time to read it through.

Harvard psychologist Marc Hauser’s new theory says evolution hardwired us to know right from wrong. But here’s the confusing part: It also gave us a lot of wiggle room. Extract from DISCOVER

You argue that humans have an innate moral faculty. Can you describe what you mean by this?
The basic idea is to ask about the sources of our moral judgments. What are the psychological processes involved when we deliver a moral judgment of right or wrong? The crucial issue to keep in mind here is a distinction between how we judge and what we do. In some cases, our judgments may align very closely with what we would actually do, but on occasions they may be very, very different.

The second point is to draw on an analogy with language and ask whether there might be something like a universal moral grammar, a set of principles that every human is born with. It’s a tool kit in some sense for building possible moral systems. In linguistics, there is a lot of variation that we see in the expressed languages throughout the world. The real deep insight of Chomskian linguistics was to ask the question, “Might this variation at some level be explained by certain common principles of universal grammar?” That allows, of course, for every language to have its own lexicon. The analogy with morality would simply be: There is going to be a suite of universal principles that dictate how we think about the nature of harming and helping others, but each culture has some freedom—not unlimited—to dictate who is harmed and who is helped.

What is the evidence that we draw upon unconscious principles when making moral decisions?
Let’s take two examples. A trolley is coming down a track, and it’s going to run over and kill five people if it continues. A person standing next to the track can flip a switch and turn the trolley onto a side track where it will kill one but save the five. Most people think that’s morally permissible—to harm one person when five are saved. Another case is when a nurse comes up to a doctor and says, “Doctor, we’ve got five patients in critical care; each one needs an organ to survive. We do not have time to send out for organs, but a healthy person just walked into the hospital—we can take his organs and save the five. Is that OK?” No one says yes to that one. Now, in both cases your action can save five while harming one, so they’re identical in that sense. So why the flip-flop? People of different ages, people of different religious backgrounds, people even with different educations typically cannot explain why they think those cases differ. There appears to be some kind of unconscious process driving moral judgments without its being accessible to conscious reflection.

What is the evidence that infants already have a moral code ingrained in their brains?
I don’t think we’re ready to say. Studies have shown that infants as young as 15 months are sensitive to the beliefs of others—true versus false beliefs. That’s crucial to the moral domain.

There’s also this from the work of Elliot Turiel [a cognitive scientist at the University of California at Berkeley]. He said, Look, there’s a very important distinction between a social convention and a moral rule. Children by at least the age of 3 or 4 understand that distinction. Here is a simple way of putting it. If a teacher comes into a classroom and says, “Today, class, instead of raising your hand when you want to ask a question, just ask your question. Don’t raise your hand.” If you ask kids, “Is that OK?” kids will say, “OK, fine.” If you tell them, “In our class, we raise our hands to ask questions, but in France they never raise their hands. Is that OK?” “OK.” So it’s basically open to authority; it’s culturally variable.

There appears to be some kind of unconscious process driving moral judgments without its being accessible to conscious reflection

So that’s a social dimension. But now imagine the following situation. The teacher comes into the class and says, “If you’re annoyed by a child sitting next to you, just punch him!” You’re going to have moral outrage. You can’t say that! If you say, “But in France they do,” they’d say, “Well, the French are weird; the French can’t say that.” So it’s completely not open to authoritarian override, in a sense, and it’s not culturally variable. So you get this kind of fundamental distinction that’s coming on fairly early. But first the question is: How does the kid know that it’s in the moral zone as opposed to merely the social zone? We don’t know.

Why would natural selection have favored the evolution of an innate moral code within our brains?
One possibility is that these principles that I’m describing were not selected for morality. They were favored for other aspects of social cognition and are simply borrowed by morality. What does morality do at a very general level? It sets up, either unconsciously or consciously, rules for navigating the social world. Now, why might it be unconscious? It might be unconscious for exactly the same reason that language is unconscious at some level.

Imagine that every time you would try to talk to me, you had to think about adjectives, nouns, verbs, and where they go. Well, you would never say anything. This conversation would take 10 years to complete. Whereas if it’s unconscious, well, you’re just jamming through all this information, because the structure of this stuff is just natural to you. My guess is that there is some aspect of morality which is very much like that. If every time you were confronted with a moral issue you actually had to work it through, you would do nothing else. So there’s something highly adaptive to the unconscious aspects of not having to think about these things all the time.

Of course, one of the things that makes morality adaptive is that it does allow for a certain level of within-group stability and, therefore, allows for individual fitness to be enhanced from a genetic perspective. So if I live in a world of defectors, I have no chance, whereas if I can find the cooperators and cooperate with them, my own individual fitness will be greatly enhanced. So I want to know who are the individuals I can trust and those I can’t trust. At that level, there’s been, of course, greater selection for any kind of social group to have certain kinds of principles that allow for group-level stability.

You draw an analogy between Noam Chomsky’s theory of a universal grammar and your own concept of a universal moral code. But moral rules, as described in your book, differ across cultures. For example, some societies permit intentional murder, such as honor killings of women who have transgressed that society’s sexual codes. How do you explain this?
Let’s focus on honor killings. In this country, in its early stage of colonization, the South of the United States was colonized in part by Celtic herders, Irish, and Scotsmen, whereas the North/Northeast was colonized heavily by German potato plow farmers. That kind of colonization set up very different cultural psychologies. The South developed this very macho policy toward the world—if somebody took your cattle, you were going to kill them. That was crucial to your livelihood. Whereas nobody is going to steal a crop of potatoes. If somebody takes a few, who cares? What that machismo led to were these cases where if a man’s wife was caught with somebody else, it was not merely permissible for the man to kill his spouse, it was obligatory. Now, let’s take the Middle East. They, too, have honor killings in cases of infidelity. But who does the killing is completely different. There it’s not the husband. It’s the wife’s family who is responsible for killing her. There are rules for permissible killing. Who does the killing is simply a parameter in that space of permissibility.

You mention honor killings in cases of infidelity, but sometimes the victim may simply have been caught in public talking to a man who is not her husband. As a Western woman raised in the liberal tradition, I think that is immoral. Yet in societies where honor killings are acceptable, the decision to kill the woman is deemed morally correct. Why?
Let’s go back to language. You’re a speaker of English. In French, the world “table” is feminine. Why? Isn’t that weird? Isn’t that incomprehensible? For an English speaker, that’s the most bizarre thing in the world! It’s incredibly hard to learn. Yet are the French weird? They’re not weird. They speak another language.

The analogy to language is to me very profound and important. When you say, “Look, it’s weird that a culture would actually kill someone for infidelity,” it’s no different than us making a language that’s got these really weird quirks. Now, here’s where the difference is crucial. As English speakers, we can’t tell the French: “You idiots. Saying that a word has gender is stupid, and you guys just change the system.” But as we have seen historically, one culture telling another culture, “Hey, this is not OK. We do not think it is morally permissible to do clitoridectomies, and you should just stop, and we’re going to find international ways to put the constraints on you”—now, that’s whoppingly different. But it also captures something crucial. The descriptive level and the prescriptive level are crucially different. How biology basically guides what people are doing is one thing. What we think should happen is really different. That just doesn’t arise as a distinction within language.

 

Isn’t there a big difference between nuances in language and the varying ways in which different societies define murder? A definition of murder seems much more fundamental to human behavior than whether the French language applies gender to nouns and English does not.
That’s a great question. I think the way to unpack it is in the following sense. Look, everyone speaks a language. Everyone has a moral system. You can also say, “Look, every language has certain abstract variables, like nouns and verbs.” That’s true. Now, what I would say is that every culture has got a distinction about intended harms, about actions versus omissions. There are abstractions about the nature of action which play a role in the same kind of way as nouns and verbs do.

My guess is this: It’s a hypothesis. There’s a huge amount of other work to be done. In the end, I will bet that the analogy will only go so deep. Morality could not be just like language. It’s a different system. But my guess is that there will be unconscious, inaccessible principles that will be in some sense like morality. They will not be part of a child’s education, and there will be a richness to the child’s representations of the world in the moral area that will be as rich as they are in language.

If every time you were confronted with a moral issue you had to work it through, you would do nothing else

Are there moral principles that hold true across all societies?
People want to say things like “do unto others [as you would have done unto you].” You see it everywhere. So there’s some notion of reciprocity, and that includes both the good and bad. If I have been harmed, there is some notion of revenge which certainly seems to be part of the human psychology. Some level of, “If somebody does something nice for me, I should do something nice back to them” also seems part of the psychology. It may be evolutionarily ancient. Work that we’ve done on animals suggests some kind of reciprocity, some ancient level of cooperation. So is there a generic rule that says “don’t kill others”? No, there’s not, because that rule is always adjoined to a caveat, which says, “Well, we kill some people, but not everybody.” It’s always an in-group, out-group distinction.

What impact does religion have on moral behavior?
I think that for many who come from a religious background, religion is synonymous with morality. Some people think that if you’re an atheist, you simply have no morals. That is just wrong. There are an awful lot of people who are atheists who do very, very wonderful things. As an objective question, do people who have religious backgrounds show different patterns of moral judgments than people who are atheists? So far, the answer is a resounding no.

Do you mean that people give the same answers to objective tests of moral reasoning regardless of religious background?
One hundred percent. So far, exactly the same. Here’s an example that comes from MIT philosopher Judy Thomson. She was interested in a question of whether the fetus has an obligatory right to the mother’s body. So she gives an incredibly apocryphal, crazy example: A woman is lying in bed one morning, and she wakes up to find a man lying in bed unconscious next to her. Another gentleman walks up to her and says: “I’m terribly sorry, but this man right next to you is a world-famous violinist, and he’s unconscious and in terrible health. He’s in kidney failure, and I hope you don’t mind, but we’ve plugged him into your kidney. And if he stays plugged in for the next nine months, you will save him.”

You ask people, “Is that morally permissible?” They’re like: “No, it’s insane. Of course not.” Well, that makes [Thomson’s] point exquisitely. It would be nice if she said, “Sure, I love this guy’s playing; plug him in.” But she’s not obligated to do so. Now let me make it like the abortion case. She says, “Yes, I love this guy’s violin playing!” Two months into it, she goes: “You know what? This really is a drag,” and she unplugs. Now people all of a sudden have a sense that’s less permissible than the first case. But here, people who are pro-choice or pro-life do not differ. So the point is, if you take people away from the familiar and you capture some of the critical underlying psychological issues that play into the real-world cases, then you find that the religious effects are minimal.

Do other species have any form of moral faculty?
Certainly sympathy, caretaking, cooperation; those things are there in some animals. The crucial questions are, “Do animals have any sense of what they ought to do?” and “To what extent will animals judge transgressions of others as being wrong in some way?” How we’d ever understand that, I don’t know.

 

 

 

Apres ma lecture de ce dimanche,  trotte dans ma tête: un amour inconditionnel donne une fidélité qui demeure inébranlable.

Peut-être bien que les nouvelles récentes des situations familiales difficiles ont aiguillé ma réflexion et mes préoccupations de ces derniers jours. Donner un amour inconditionnel à l’image de notre Seigneur Jésus est bien sûr un exploit divin, un idéal que nous sommes  tous appelés à suivre. Humains que nous sommes, par définition  truffés de faiblesse et d’égoïsme, nous ne pourrions vivre, voire atteindre l’amour inconditionnel qui donne cette fidélité inébranlable que par la grâce de Dieu. Notre prière est ainsi de demander  toujours et continuellement grâce auprès de Lui pour nous faire don de cet amour. L’object  de ma supplication de ce jour a la messe.

Je prends  ici, la liberté de reformuler Albert-Marie Besnard : Pour vivre à contre-courant des divisions et des séparations, seule la mise de fond d’un amour gratuit et inconditionnel peut travailler.

Dans l’Evangile il nous a déjà averti : «Je vous ai dit toutes ces choses maintenant, avant qu’elles n’arrivent ; ainsi, lorsqu’elles arriveront, vous croirez. »

 Sans vouloir prendre à défaut le contexte des lectures, je les lis à ma manière dans l’instant du moment : «Celui qui ne m’aime (gratuit et inconditionnel) pas ne restera pas fidèle » 

We all know how much cars, Lorries and in general the present combustion engines used by vehicles pollute the environment whilst contributing to the rapid depletion of world reserves of crude oil.

It would appear that electricity driven engine which is by far more environment friendly will replace the combustion engines. Fuel cell hybrid seems to be the wining technology for the time being. The main drawbacks today are the relatively slow acceleration of the electric motors; the distance the vehicle can run without having to be recharged and most importantly the cost of the electric power system.

Toyota seems to be progressing with the dual gasoline and fuel cell hybrid.For the 7th consecutive years they have been earned top rating environmental awards. More developments will happen sooner than later. The pressure on the environment and the impact on the global warming will surely push to use of cleaner fuel and means much faster now.

How does Fuel Cell Hybrid works? Vectrix a scooter driven by this technology on its website gives some insights in the principle.

The fuel cell hybrid maxi-scooter features a fully-integrated 500-watt Protonex NGenTM fuel cell system that continuously charges the battery pack, which in turn provides power to drive the motor. The fuel cell shuts off automatically when the battery pack is fully charged.

The hybrid configuration uses the best aspects of battery and fuel cell technologies. The battery pack provides the quick bursts of energy for accelerating or climbing steep hills, while the fuel cell provides a constant trickle charge to help extend range and keep the batteries topped up. The patented throttle activated regenerative braking system (DAaRTâ„¢) further extends the range by directing energy back into the battery during braking.

I am on the watchout for the latest on the subject. I would wish to try out one of the Vectrix scooters sold today for USD 15000.

Apoc. 21,1-5.
Alors j’ai vu un ciel nouveau et une terre nouvelle, car le premier ciel et la première terre avaient disparu, et il n’y avait plus de mer.
Et j’ai vu descendre du ciel, d’auprès de Dieu, la cité sainte, la
Jérusalem nouvelle, toute prête, comme une fiancée parée pour son époux.
Et j’ai entendu la voix puissante qui venait du Trône divin ; elle disait :
« Voici la demeure de Dieu avec les hommes ; il demeurera avec eux, et ils seront son peuple, Dieu lui-même sera avec eux.
Il essuiera toute larme de leurs yeux, et la mort n’existera plus ; et il
n’y aura plus de pleurs, de cris, ni de tristesse ; car la première
création aura disparu. »
Alors celui qui siégeait sur le Trône déclara : « Voici que je fais toutes
choses nouvelles. Écris ces paroles : elles sont dignes de foi et
véridiques. »

Jn 13,31-33.34-35.
Quand Judas fut sorti, Jésus déclara : « Maintenant le Fils de l’homme est glorifié, et Dieu est glorifié en lui.
Si Dieu est glorifié en lui, Dieu en retour lui donnera sa propre gloire ;
et il la lui donnera bientôt.
Mes petits enfants, je suis encore avec vous, mais pour peu de temps, et vous me chercherez. J’ai dit aux Juifs : Là où je m’en vais, vous ne pouvez pas y aller. Je vous le dis maintenant à vous aussi.
Je vous donne un commandement nouveau : c’est de vous aimer les uns les autres. Comme je vous ai aimés, vous aussi aimez-vous les uns les autres.
Ce qui montrera à tous les hommes que vous êtes mes disciples, c’est
l’amour que vous aurez les uns pour les autres. »

Quelques réflexions qui ont retenues mon attention sur les lectures de ce dimanche :

Primo, ‘un ciel nouveau, une terre nouvelle, je fais toutes
choses nouvelles, commandement nouveau’

La résurrection nous a ouvert un monde nouveau, comment ? Qu’a-t-il de différent ? Par sa mort et sa résurrection, Jésus nous a ouvert une avenue qui n’existait pas avant. La nouveauté se trouve là. Le neuf nous réjouit toujours car il nous donne une nouvelle espérance.

Ainsi, nous pouvons rendre gloire à Dieu Père et Jésus Fils en même temps. Langage peut-être pompeux. Rendre Gloire veut dire simplement quoi ? Glorifier une personne dans le monde d’aujourd’hui n est-il pas de lui couvrir de félicitations, de louanges et de belle parole ? Quand il s’agit de glorifier le Seigneur Dieu, ce serait la même chose mais, magnifié à une dimension de l’infiniment grand. « Le Fils de l’homme est glorifié et Dieu est glorifié en lui » est pour moi de voir et louer Dieu Père et Fils dans toute Leur splendeur, magnitude, omniscience, et omnipotence. Etre en Adoration de Dieu.

Cette unité et réciprocité du Père et du Fils en sont la nouveauté.

Secondo, ‘Comme je vous ai aimés, vous aussi aimez-vous les uns les autres. C’est l’amour que vous aurez les uns pour les autres’

Dans son commandement nouveau, je percois que Dieu nous demande d’intégrer dans nos relations avec les autres cette meme unité et réciprocité du Père et du Fils.

Et enfin:
Notre ciel, ne serait–il pas de vivre en union permanente avec notre Dieu ? Notre ciel : ‘Voici la demeure de Dieu avec les hommes ; il demeurera avec eux’

In many countries, May Day is also Labor Day. This originates with the United States labor movement in the late 19th Century, and very much inspired by similar actions taken earlier in Canada. On May 1, 1886, unions across the country went on strike, demanding that the standard workday be shortened to eight hours. The organizers of these strikes included socialists, anarchists, and others in organized labor movements. Rioting in Chicago’s Haymarket Square on May 4th including a bomb thrown by an anarchist led to the deaths of a dozen people (including several police officers) and the injury of over 100 more.

The protests were not immediately successful, but they proved effective down the line, as eight-hour work days eventually did become the norm. Labor leaders, socialists, and anarchists around the world took the American strikes and their fallout as a rallying point, choosing May Day as a day for demonstrations, parades, and speeches. It was a major state holiday in the Soviet Union and other communist countries.

Labor Day is still celebrated on May 1 in countries around the world, and it is still often a day for protests and rallies. In recent years, these have often been targeted against globalization.

May 1st, often called May Day, just might have more holidays than any other day of the year. It’s a celebration of spring. It’s a day of political protests. It’s a neopagan festival, a saint’s feast day, and a day for organized labor. In many countries, it is a national holiday.

Pope Leon XIII and later Pie XI who were very concerned about the condition of workers in the emerging Industrial era gave a Christian dimension to the Labour Day by declaring that the day will be under the Patronage of St. Joseph, the carpenter, father of Jesus. The example of St. Joseph throws a new light to the dignity of labour. Model worker to be followed, according to the Christian teachings, St. Joseph’s work was not only his means to offer his labour for his own betterment and that of his family, the perfection of nature around him and for the progress of the community, also a means to be in union and contributing to the mission of Jesus. Hence the effort of labour becomes a prayer.

I asked a few people: what is the public holiday for according to you? One replied it is Labour Day: a day of rest for the workers. Another one said: Labour day: day for political rallies. None of them thought of the Labour Day as a day of celebration and thanks giving for the work that provides us our sense of usefulness and dignity. Even for me who am, so to say “retired” I do need to have this sense of usefulness, a purpose in life?

I would rather see today as a day of celebration organised by the work force to give themselves a sense of pride & dignity and to discuss their contribution to the betterment of our society.

Bonne Fete a tous!

 

 

Ce dimanche, la liturgie nous propose l’image du bon Pasteur qui donne sa vie pour ses brebis. Un acte d’Amour inestimable que seul Dieu est capable de faire. Tout donné jusqu’à la mort pour sauver le monde et de nous donner la vie éternelle. Ce qui m’a également interpellé est unicité du Père et de Jésus à faire ce cadeau à tous qui écoutent sa voix. La question reste quand et à quelle fréquence j’écoute sa voix ? Ma voie serait d’écouter sa voix!

Cardinal Newman Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-1890), prêtre, fondateur de communauté religieuse, théologien avait écrit sur ce texte de l’évangile : La faiblesse de la foi de Thomas, source de grâce pour l’Eglise. Ces commentaires méritent d’être lus. Sur demande, je serai heureux de vous envoyer une copie par mail.

Je vous livre mes interpellations sur le texte :

N est-ce pas notre cas ? Combien de fois nous faut il ‘voir pour croire’ ? Ne sommes pas des Thomas ? A l’opposé, des apôtres Jean, Pierre et les autres ont cru immédiatement aux témoignages des femmes qui ont été au tombeau. Ne sommes nous pas de temps en temps crédules par rapport aux dires des uns et des autres, et des fois n’avons-nous pas besoin de voir pour croire? Pourquoi ?

Cette leçon de Thomas me questionne sur ma Foi : La Foi don de Dieu : j’ai la Foi, un cadeau du Divin ou faut il que je désire la Foi pour qu’IL m’en fasse cadeau ? Quelle part l’obtention d une Foi vivante et inébranlable, je pense, nécessiterait une démarche ou une initiative de ma part.

Sur une note plus terre à terre, je vois un parallèle :

-Je désire quelque chose,

– je suis convaincu que je peux l’avoir,

-Je fais comme si je l’ai (la chose),

-Je l’ai déjà.

Ainsi, je ne sais pas combien est grande est ma foi en Dieu et mon espérance en la résurrection promise par Lui. Si je fais comme si j’avais cette Foi inébranlable, j’agirai différemment, et par là ma foi grandira et je vivrai la résurrection promise.

Peut être bien du « Wishful thinking » ? N’est ce pas cela l’Espérance ?

The very best Easter wishing card I got….At least it gives the essence of the feast we were celebrating.

I saw the bus load of holidayer s and cars filled up to the brim with merry and not so sober passengers driving back from Flic en Flac last night. I could not prevent me from thinking 1. I am pleased to know that so many people are rejoicing for the festivities and 2. I wonder how many of them understand the meaning of this feast.

Alleluia