[文集] [专题] [检索] [独立评论] [海阔天空] [矛盾江湖] [全版论坛]

独立评论

作者: 鸡头肉   转一篇凯瑟琳·兰佩尔的文章 2017-02-17 12:51:46  [点击:843]
担心伊斯兰政教合一对西方民主的侵蚀,不能说是“杞人忧天”。相反,正如华盛顿邮报的专栏作家凯瑟琳·兰佩尔(Catherine Rampell)撰文指出的,“令人畏惧的‘伊斯兰教法’,或与其相似之物,很有可能在美国登堂入室,只是其进入的方式并非如许多美国人设想的那样。”

兰佩尔认为,这里的主要威胁不是来自教派本身(宗教对公众的影响力当然会有各种追求,自古如此),而是来自白宫。

理论上说,如果川普废除了“约翰逊修正法案”,各宗教(包括伊斯兰教在内)的政治操作空间显然就增加了。从实际的角度看,川普的执政确实增加了政教合一的风险——只不过这里的“教”是基督教。当俺们谈论“伊斯兰政教合一”的可怕之处时,惧怕的到底是“伊斯兰”,还是“政教合一”?如果是后者,川普的愿望已经足够引起人们警惕了。如果是前者,俺觉得讨论就可以回到俺之前的一个帖子,特别是其中的最后两个段落:

http://duping.net/XHC/show.php?bbs=11&post=1376982

下面是凯瑟琳·兰佩尔所写的全文。


Religious law may be coming to America. But it’s not sharia; it’s Christian.


Much-dreaded “sharia law,” or something resembling it, may well be coming to the United States.

Just not in the form many Americans expected.

That is, the religiously motivated laws creeping into public policymaking aren’t based on the Koran, and they aren’t coming from mythical hard-line Islamists in, say, Dearborn, Mich. They’re coming from the White House, which wants to make it easier for hard-line Christians to impose their beliefs and practices on the rest of us.

A few days after declaring his intention to impose a religious test upon refugees so that Christians would be given priority, President Trump gave a bizarre speech at the National Prayer Breakfast. In between a plug for “The Apprentice” and boasts about his disastrous calls with heads of allied states, he made some less-noticed policy news.

He vowed to help blur the line between church and state by repealing the Johnson Amendment.

For those unfamiliar, this tax code provision bars tax-exempt entities such as churches and charitable organizations from participating in campaigns for or against political candidates. It dates to 1954, when it was signed by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. It was not terribly controversial at the time.

The provision basically says that if you want to be exempted from paying taxes — meaning you are effectively subsidized by other taxpayers, who pay for your access to emergency services, roads and other government functions — you can’t be involved in partisan politics. You can’t, among other things, take tax-deductible donations from your worshippers and turn around and spend them on political campaigns.

That’s just the trade-off you agree to make.

Certain religious organizations, in particular those from the evangelical Christian community, have opposed this law in recent years. And during the campaign, Trump indicated he’d do his darnedest to get them what they really want: not the ability to endorse candidates from the pulpit — a practice that the IRS has already been ignoring — but the ability to funnel taxpayer-subsidized funds into the political process.

The president can’t “totally destroy” the law unilaterally, despite Trump’s pledge to do so; he’ll need action from Congress, but that may not be hard to secure these days. Republicans control both houses of Congress, and the most recent Republican platform included a commitment to repeal the Johnson Amendment.

Also this week, the Nation’s Sarah Posner published a leaked draft of an executive order that would require federal agencies to look the other way when private organizations discriminate based on religious beliefs. Coincidentally, these seem to primarily be religious beliefs held by conservative Christians.

The effect of the order might be to create wholesale exemptions to anti-discrimination law for people, nonprofits and closely held for-profit corporations that claim religious objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion and transgender identity. It would also curb women’s access to contraception through the Affordable Care Act. (A White House official did not dispute the draft’s authenticity.)

This is, of course, all in the name of preserving religious freedom. Except that it allows some people to practice religious freedom by denying jobs, services and potentially public accommodation to those with differing beliefs.

The order, if signed, would seem to exceed the executive branch’s authority, Posner notes; moreover, given that the order’s language appears to privilege some religious beliefs over others, it may violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Trump has also chosen personnel who seem keen on muddying the distinction between church and state.

For example, his embattled education secretary nominee, Betsy DeVos, has advocated that government dollars be channeled to religious schools through relatively expansive voucher programs. (During the campaign, Trump also said that public funds should follow students to the private school of their choice, explicitly including religious schools.)

During her confirmation hearings, DeVos’s cryptic comments about supporting science education that encourages “critical thinking” have also been interpreted as well-established code for supporting the teaching of intelligent design, a sort of dressed-up creationism.

I wish I could say that only a tiny fringe believes Christian practices deserve pride of place in public life and policymaking. But that’s not the case.

In a poll released this week by the Pew Research Center, Americans were asked what made someone “truly American.” A third of respondents overall, and 43 percent of Republicans, said you need to be Christian. That would exclude me, as well as about 30 percent of the population.

The far right has done a lot of fear-mongering about the undue influence that religious fanatics may soon exert on the body politic. Seems they better understood what they were talking about than most of us realized.
最后编辑时间: 2017-02-17 13:56:54

加跟贴

笔名:     新网友请先注册笔名 密码:
主题: 进文集
内容: