آخرین ارسالات تالار

 
 

بازگشت   فوروم ایران آمریکا > ورود به تالار ترجمه > تالار مطالب اجتماعی (ترجمه)

پاسخ
    نمایش ها: 967 - پاسخ ها: 1  
ابزارهای موضوع نحوه نمایش
قدیمی 06-17-2016, 03:37 PM   #1
حاجی جفرسون
 
حاجی جفرسون's Avatar
 
تاریخ عضویت: Sep 2008
محل سکونت: Yankeeland
پست ها: 10,652
تشکرها: 4,206
در 8,212 پست 26,845 بار تشکر شده
Points: 108,663, Level: 100
Points: 108,663, Level: 100 Points: 108,663, Level: 100 Points: 108,663, Level: 100
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
پیش فرض اگر اسلام دین خشونت است، مسیحیت هم دین خشونت است جولیا ایاف فارن پالیسی

اگر اسلام دین خشونت است، مسیحیت هم دین خشونت است

جولیا ایاف
فارن پالیسی

پس از این که حادثه اورلاندو به وقوع پیوست و ترامپ به خود برای پیش بینی آن تبریک گفت، این نامزد جمهوری خواه مجددا بر مواضع قبلی خود مبنی بر اینکه اسلام رادیکال و نه اسلحه عامل اصلی این حملات بود، اصرار ورزید. دیدگاه ترامپ دیدگاهی صفر و یکی است؛ یا اسلحه مردم را به کشتن می دهد یا اسلام رادیکال. در نگاه وی تنها یک مذهب است که می تواند بد باشد؛ بدین ترتیب مسیحیت خوب و اسلام بد است. مسیحیت صلح طلب و اسلام خشونت طلب است. مسیحیت تساهل گرا و اسلام متعصب است. هر دو جوهره ای ثابت و غیرقابل تغییر دارند که رفتاری خاص را به پیروان خود دیکته می کنند.

این دیدگاه هم در میان حامیان ترامپ و هم در میان غیرحامیان وی دیده می شود. به زبان سکولاریسم می توان این نگاه را مانوی خواند که همه چیز در آن یا سیاه دیده می شود یا سفید.
اما خوب است به این نکته توجه کنیم که اصطلاح مانوی نخستین بار در قرن سوم و برای توضیح آیینی استفاده شد که از سوی ایران به شمال و شرق آفریقا که آن زمان جزئی از امپراتوری روم بود، استفاده شد. این آیین در آن زمان بسیاری از مسیحیان را تحت تاثیر قرار داد. بار معنایی منفی مانوی گری در عصر حاضر می تواند به خاطر مرتد شمردن معتقدان آن از سوی کلیسای کاتولیک باشد. کلیسا اموال آنها را مصادره کرد و حکم مرگ برای آنها صادر کرد.

بحث مانوی گری در اینجا مطرح شد تا بحث های ترامپ در مورد ذاتا خشن بودن اسلام و ذاتا صلح طلب بودن مسیحیت مورد توجه قرار بگیرد. بحث مانویان و بحث جنگ های صلیبی هر دو وقتی صحبت از ویژگی های ذاتی ادیان به میان می آید، حائز اهمیت است. اگر این موارد را مانند بسیاری به انحراف در مسیحیت ارتباط دهیم، چرا نمی توانیم همین استدلال را در مورد اسلام افراطی و امثال داعش داشته باشیم؟ نمی توان به خاطر مثال های تاریخی یک مذهب را خشونت طلب خواند و در عین حال سبقه تاریخی مسیحیت را فراموش کرد.

ترامپ روز دوشنبه ادعا کرده بود که اسلام افراطی ضد زن، ضد همجنسگرایان و ضد آمریکاییان است. وی در ادامه گفت: «من اجازه نمی دهم که آمریکا تبدیل به مکانی شود که در آن مسیحیان، همجنس گرایان و یهودیان هدف ارعاب و آزار و اذیت اسلام گرایان افراطی شوند.» هدف وی این بود که حامیان اسلام به قدری نسبت به کسانی که دیدگاهی متفاوت دارند با تعصب برخورد می کنند که هیچ چاره ای جز برگرداندن خشونت به سوی خود آنها وجود ندارد. اما سبقه مسیحیت هم مملو از آثار خشونت است.

سخنان ترامپ در حمایت از یهودیان ظاهری زیبا دارد اما طی 2هزار سال پیش و پیش از آن که کشورهای مسلمان در 1948 به اخراج یهودیان از کشورهای خود بپردازند، آنها هدف آزار و اذیت و ارعاب از سوی مسیحیان بودند. زندگی یهودیان در کشورهای مسلمان با وجود همه محدودیت ها قابل مقایسه با کشتار آنها در غرب مسیحی متمدن نبود.

اگر چه وجود نفرت از یهودیان در جهان اسلام غیر قابل انکار است، اما آن یهودستیزی که هر یهودی ساکن آمریکا را نگران می کند از سوی مسلمانان ناشی نمی شود بلکه منشاء آن حامیان سفیدپوست و مسیحی ترامپ هستند. بهتر است که وی به آزار و اذیت خبرنگاران یهودی از سوی حامیان خود بپردازد.

متهم کردن اسلام به ضدیت با هم جنس گرایان از سوی ترامپ و مسیحیت نیز موضوع مضحک دیگری است که مطرح می شود. در جامعه آمریکا هیچ کس تا کنون به اندازه محافظه کاران مسیحی مقابل همجنس گرایان نایستاده است. آنها هم جنس گرایی را برای دهه ها معادل وحشی گری خوانده و حامی منع قانونی ازدواج آنها و اعمال تبعیض علیه آنها بودند.
نگاه محافظه کراران مسیحی و متهم کردن کل یک دین بسیار به همان تعصب و خشونتی شبیه است که آنها مسلمانان را به آن متهم می کنند.

منظور از همه این سخنان متهم کردن مسیحیت به خشونت نیست. اما نباید آن را یکپارچه صلح طلب بدانیم. سایر ادیان هم به همین صورت هستند. هیچ مذهبی در ذات خشونت طلب یا صلح طلب نیست. ممکن است برخی از مردم خشن باشند و سعی کنند برای فرار از مسئولیت اقدامات خود، این خشونت را در لفافه ای از ایدئولوژی و مذهب بپوشانند.


http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/14/...-christianity/

__________________
تنها خدا بود که می دانست!
حاجی جفرسون آنلاین نیست.   پاسخ با نقل قول
این کاربر از حاجی جفرسون بخاطر ارسال این پست تشکر کرده است :
قدیمی 06-17-2016, 03:39 PM   #2
حاجی جفرسون
 
حاجی جفرسون's Avatar
 
تاریخ عضویت: Sep 2008
محل سکونت: Yankeeland
پست ها: 10,652
تشکرها: 4,206
در 8,212 پست 26,845 بار تشکر شده
Points: 108,663, Level: 100
Points: 108,663, Level: 100 Points: 108,663, Level: 100 Points: 108,663, Level: 100
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
پیش فرض پاسخ : اگر اسلام دین خشونت است، مسیحیت هم دین خشونت است جولیا ایاف فارن پالیسی

If Islam Is a Religion of Violence, So Is Christianity

The world’s oldest religions all have troubling histories of bloodshed. Singling out Islam is just Trump’s latest, hateful hypocrisy.


Speaking after “appreciating the congrats” on the Orlando shootings, Donald Trump again insisted that what mowed people down at Pulse was not an assault rifle but radical Islam, because in Trump Tower, it cannot be both. Trump’s world is binary. It is zero-sum: Either guns kill people or radical Islam kills people. In that world, only one religion can be bad, and so Christianity is good and Islam is bad. Christianity is peaceful and Islam violent. Christianity is tolerant and Islam intolerant. Both are inherently one thing or the other, immutable blueprints etched in stone for the behavior of their respective adherents.
This is a worldview that is shared by people who are Trump supporters and not Trump supporters. In the secular vernacular, we might call this view “Manichean,” that is, a binary between light and darkness, good and evil.

CIA Chief: We Won't Torture, Even If Ordered To
John Brennan says he'll never go along with waterboarding.





Promoted By
But it’s worth noting that “Manichean” was originally used to describe a religion that spread from Persia to the eastern and northern African parts of the Roman Empire in the third century, one that influenced many early Christians. If the word “Manichean” has negative connotations today, it might be because it was deemed a heresy by the early Catholic Church, one that needed to be ruthlessly rooted out of the Christian universe. And I mean ruthlessly: Adherents of a Manichean-tinged Christianity had their goods confiscated and were put to death, even if they converted to proper Christianity but still kept in touch with their Manichean contacts. Even St. Augustine called for their energetic persecution.
The reason I bring up the Manicheans is because I am tired of hearing, from Bill Maher and from Donald Trump, that Islam is inherently violent. I am even more tired of hearing that Christianity is inherently peaceful. I have witnessed this debate play out many times over, including at one dinner party when Laura Ingraham turned to the other guests and took a poll: Raise your hands if you think Islam is a death cult. Most of the (politically conservative) guests raised their hands and then took pains to explain to me how, unlike Islam, Christianity is inherently a religion of love.
With all due respect to my many Christian friends, I seriously beg to differ.
Conservatives roll their eyes when you mention the Crusades — oh, that old thing? — and I’m sure they will when they see the reference to the Manicheans, but they both matter, especially if you’re trying to argue that religions have inherent characteristics. If that was a perversion of Christianity, as many argue, or a fluke, then why can we not extend the same thinking toward, say, the Muslim conquests of the Middle East, or, dare I say it, the Islamic State? You cannot argue that one religion is inherently violent because of the following historical examples, and then wave away the violent history of Christianity and say the exception proves the rule.
The Crusades are still a sore subject in the Muslim world, but it’s easy to forget the havoc they wreaked on the Jews of Europe. Time after time, as Crusaders slogged southeast on their umpteenth trip to the Holy Land, they slaughtered the Jews in their path. They herded them into synagogues and set the buildings alight. The Crusaders killed so many Jews in the name of their Christian faith that it was the most stunning demographic blow to European Jewry until the Holocaust. Which, just a friendly reminder, happened in Christian, civilized Europe only 70-some years ago.
And if you don’t believe me about the brutal repression of Manichean Christians, you can read about it here in the Catholic Encyclopedia (a publication that “chronicles what Catholic artists, educators, poets, scientists and men of action have achieved in their several provinces”). The Christian Church was ruthless with people whose faith was in any way a deviation from the canon, torturing and burning heretics at the stake. After Martin Luther pinned his theses to a church door, unintentionally spawning a new wing of Christianity, it led to hundreds of years of on-and-off religious warfare between Christians, spilling each other’s blood in the fervent belief that their vision of Christ was the truest. And it’s not ancient history: Violence between Protestants and Catholics continued in Christian Ireland until the very end of the 20th century.
“Radical Islam is anti-woman, anti-gay, and anti-American,” Donald Trump said on Monday. “I refuse to allow America to become a place where gay people, Christian people, and Jewish people are the targets of persecution and intimidation by radical Islamic preachers of hate and violence.”
The point he was trying to make was that the adherents of radical Islam (whatever that is) are so uncomfortable with those who don’t share their beliefs that they can’t help but turn violent against them. Radical Islam may be all those things and more, but Christianity’s record isn’t much better.
Let’s take Trump’s concern for Jewish people being “the targets of persecution and intimidation.” It is a wonderful sentiment, but, for the past 2,000 years, until Muslim countries expelled their Jewish populations in 1948, Jews have been targets of persecution and intimidation — to put it mildly — at the hands of Christians. Jewish life in Muslim countries, though still saddled with all kinds of restrictions and orders to wear funny clothing and sporadic violence, was far less bloody than in the civilized Christian West. There are so many historical examples I could mention — Christians killing Jews because they blamed them for the plague; the fact that the word “ghetto” comes from the enclosures in which Jews were forced to live in medieval Venice; the pogroms in which the Russian Orthodox Church encouraged their flocks to kill the non-believing Jews. If that’s too far back in time for you, consider July 1988, the thousandth anniversary of the baptism of Russia: Rumors flew in Moscow that there would be a pogrom to celebrate the day Christianity came to Russia, and that the police were handing out addresses of Jews to the public. (That’s when my family decided to flee Holy Rus.)
And if you want to get a list of Christian countries that expelled the Jews but are daunted by the historical dust, look no further than the Trump supporters who regularly tweet those lists at me as proof that Jews deserve the violence they’ve gotten over the years. Then there’s the very modern phenomenon that is the Trump troll, frequently blasting me as a “Christ killer” who deserves anti-Semitism for “mocking the Gospel.” All this punctuated by exhortations to get back in the oven and people thoughtfully ordering coffins on my behalf.
And though Trump’s concern is for Jewish people being the subjects of persecution by “radical Islamic preachers,” it is not the radical Muslims I’m worried about as a Jew living in America. There’s plenty of hatred and anti-Semitism in the Muslim world, but the kind I receive around the clock doesn’t come from Muslims. It comes from Trump’s white, Christian supporters. I would much rather he address the persecution of Jewish journalists by his own followers, some of whom freely interweave Christian symbols, white power references, and violent threats in their communications. But Trump doesn’t address them and he certainly doesn’t disavow them. He said he has “no message” for them. Just for the radical Muslims.
Watching Trump and the Christian right go after Islam for being homophobic is, frankly, jaw-dropping. If any community in this country has shown itself to be anti-gay, it is conservative Christians and their decades of peddling hatred for gay people, comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality, claiming AIDS is divine punishment, pushing “cures” for homosexuality, and blocking laws that prevent gays not just from marrying but from being discriminated against. A Christian pastor, who has enjoyed the company of Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, and Ted Cruz, recently said that, according to the Bible, homosexuals “deserve the death penalty.” Now the very same people who, just last month, were comparing trans people to predators who would use the wrong bathroom to hunt for child victims are suddenly lining up to defend gays from radical Islam.
And yet, in the wake of the Orlando shooting, some Christians came out to say what they really thought of those gays in that club. One Christian preacher posted a video sermon in which he praised the Orlando shootings, saying, “The good news is that there’s 50 less pedophiles in this world, because, you know, these homosexuals are a bunch of disgusting perverts and pedophiles.”
And then there are the ardent American Christians who explicitly link Christianity and guns, who buy up weapons like there’s no tomorrow, but who nonetheless marvel at the warlike Saracens. In fact, the unbelievable vitriol with which conservative Christians have insisted on maligning not just radicals but an entire religion looks a lot like the kind of violence and intolerance of which they accuse Muslims.
Friday will mark the one-year anniversary of Dylann Roof killing nine people in the middle of a Bible study in Charleston, S.C. Before his rampage, he wrote a manifesto declaring his allegiance to the white supremacist cause and pointing to the Council of Conservative Citizens, which claims to adhere to “Christian beliefs and values,” as a major source of information and inspiration. By some accounts, Roof came from a church-going family and attended Christian summer camp. Did Roof kill his fellow Christians because he was deranged or because Christianity is violent?”
The answer is neither. They are not exceptions, nor do they speak to a violence inherent in Christianity. Because my point is not that Christianity is evil. It isn’t. But neither is it inherently peaceful and loving. And neither is Islam. Nor Judaism nor Hinduism nor Buddhism. No religion is inherently peaceful or violent, nor is it inherently anything other than what its followers make it out to be. People are violent, and people can dress their violence up in any number of justifying causes that seek to relieve people of their personal responsibility because the cause or religion, be it Communism or Catholicism or Islam, is simply bigger than themselves. It’s very convenient for both the perpetrator of violence and his accuser, and yet totally useless: Something can be done with a person who has transgressed, but what can you do with an amorphous concept?
Christianity, as I have seen it practiced by my friends or by Christians who saved Jews during the Holocaust, can be beautiful and peaceful and loving. Islam, as it was practiced in medieval Spain, was beautiful and peaceful, too. It can also be hideous and violent, as we’ve seen in many parts of the Middle East, in Europe, and in America in recent decades. Judaism, which people either equate with consumptive erudition or insularity, can wax violent, too. Hanukkah, every secular Jew’s favorite holiday, celebrates in part the victory of the radical, purist Jews over their assimilated, Hellenized brethren. And for my co-religionists piling onto Muslims for their homophobia, let’s remember Yishai Schlissel, who stabbed six at a gay pride parade in Jerusalem — and that was his second attack on the LGBT event. And, heck, let’s throw in Baruch Goldstein, too. Remember him, the guy who killed 29 Muslims as they prayed? Is he an exception, or does his act define Judaism’s inherent characteristics?
Even Buddhism, which many imagine to be the very definition of peace, can be bloody. Just look at Sri Lanka, where a Buddhist majority fought a vicious civil war against the Hindu north, or Myanmar, where Buddhists have violently persecuted the Muslim Rohingya.
No religion is inherently violent. No religion is inherently peaceful. Religion, any religion, is a matter of interpretation, and it is often in that interpretation that we see either beauty or ugliness — or, more often, if we are mature enough to think nuanced thoughts, something in between.
Photo credit: ERIC ANTHONY JOHNSON/Getty Images

__________________
تنها خدا بود که می دانست!
حاجی جفرسون آنلاین نیست.   پاسخ با نقل قول
پاسخ


کاربران در حال دیدن موضوع: 1 نفر (0 عضو و 1 مهمان)
 
ابزارهای موضوع
نحوه نمایش

قوانین ارسال
شما نمی توانید موضوع جدید ارسال کنید.
شما نمی توانید به موضوعات پاسخ دهید.
شما نمی توانید فایل پیوست کنید.
شما نمی توانید پست های خود را ویرایش کنید.

BB code فعال
شکلک ها فعال
کد [IMG] فعال
کد HTML غیر فعال

مراجعه سریع


ساعت جاری 04:51 AM با تنظیم GMT +4.5 می باشد.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd

Persian Language Powered by Mihan IT