The God Delusion翻譯：第一章第二節（2）

Here's a particular example of our society's overweening respect for religion, one that really matters. By far the easiest grounds for gaining conscientious objector status in wartime are religious. You can be a brilliant moral philosopher with a prizewinning doctoral thesis expounding the evils of war, and still be given a hard time by a draft board evaluating your claim to be a conscientious objector. Yet if you can say that one or both of your parents is a Quaker you sail through like a breeze, no matter how inarticulate and illiterate you may be on the theory of pacifism or, indeed, Quakerism itself.
下麵是我們的社會給於宗教過分尊重的一個特殊例子，而且非常重要。到目前為止，在戰爭時期，成為一個有良知的反戰者最容易的理由就是宗教理由。你可能是個聰明過人的道德哲學家，你寫的抨擊戰爭罪惡的博士論文就算拿了大獎，預審答辯委員會還是會在評審你作為有良知的反戰者的立場時刁難你。然而要是你能說你的父母或者父母之一是貴格教徒（老查注：貴格派是基督教新教中極端反戰的教派，“不能為軍隊服務”是其基本教條之一。），那你可就一帆風順了，才不管你在和平主義或者貴格派主張本身的理論上是含糊其辭還是一竅不通。

At the opposite end of the spectrum from pacifism, we have a pusillanimous reluctance to use religious names for warring factions. In Northern Ireland, Catholics and Protestants are euphemized to 'Nationalists' and 'Loyalists' respectively. The very word 'religions' is bowdlerized to 'communities', as in 'intercommunity
warfare'. Iraq, as a consequence of the Anglo-American invasion of 2003, degenerated into sectarian civil war between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Clearly a religious conflict - yet in the Independent of 20 May 2006 the front-page headline and first leading article both described it as 'ethnic cleansing'. 'Ethnic' in this context is yet another euphemism. What we are seeing in Iraq is religious cleansing. The original usage of 'ethnic cleansing' in the former Yugoslavia is also arguably a euphemism for religious cleansing, involving Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croats and Muslim Bosnians.
與對待和平主義立場正相反，在提到宗教衝突雙方的教派名稱時我們卻優柔寡斷，猶豫不決。在北愛爾蘭，天主教和新教分別被美其名曰“民族黨”和“保皇黨”。“宗教”這個詞被隱諱為“族群”，比如說“族群間的戰爭”。伊拉克在英美2003年入侵之後陷入了遜尼派和什葉派穆斯林之間的教派內戰。這很明顯是一個宗教衝突-然而2006年5月20日的《獨立報》頭版標題和頭版頭條文章都稱之為“種族清洗”。在這裏，“種族的”這個詞也算是一種美化之詞。我們在伊拉克看到是宗教清洗。在前南斯拉夫一開始使用的“種族清洗”一詞其實也可以說是宗教清洗的粉飾之詞，因為東正教的塞爾維亞人，天主教的克羅地亞人和波斯尼亞的穆斯林都曾卷入其中。

I have previously drawn attention to the privileging of religion in public discussions of ethics in the media and in government. Whenever a controversy arises over sexual or reproductive morals, you can bet that religious leaders from several different faith groups will be prominently represented on influential committees, or on
panel discussions on radio or television. I'm not suggesting that we should go out of our way to censor the views of these people. But why does our society beat a path to their door, as though they had some expertise comparable to that of, say, a moral philosopher, a family lawyer or a doctor?
我以前曾在媒體上和政府事務中提請人們去注意在關於倫理的公眾討論中賦予宗教的特權。每當有和性或者生殖道德有關的爭議時，可以打賭，在廣播或電視上有影響的委員會或研討會中總會有各個信仰團體的頭頭腦腦們顯赫出場。我不是說我們應該摒除這些人的觀點。但是為什麽我們的社會總是自找上門，好像在這方麵他們比別人更有專長，比如說，道德哲學家，家庭律師或者醫生？

Here's another weird example of the privileging of religion. On 21 February 2006 the United States Supreme Court ruled that a church in New Mexico should be exempt from the law, which everybody else has to obey, against the taking of hallucinogenic drugs. Faithful members of the Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal believe that they can understand God only by drinking hoasca tea, which contains the illegal hallucinogenic drug dimethyltryptamine. Note that it is sufficient that they believe that the drug enhances their understanding. They do not have to produce evidence. Conversely, there is plenty of evidence that cannabis eases the nausea and discomfort of cancer sufferers undergoing chemotherapy. Yet the Supreme Court ruled, in 2005, that all patients who use cannabis for medicinal purposes are vulnerable to federal prosecution (even in the minority of states where such specialist use is legalized). Religion, as ever, is the trump card. Imagine members of an art appreciation society pleading in court that they 'believe' they need a hallucinogenic drug in order to enhance their understanding of Impressionist or Surrealist paintings. Yet, when a church claims an equivalent need, it is backed by the highest court in the land. Such is the power of religion as a talisman.
這裏又是另外一個賦予宗教特權的古怪例子。在2006年2月21日，美國最高法院裁定新墨西哥州的一個教會對大家都必須遵守的不得使用致幻劑的法律擁有治外法權。這個所謂“仙草聖靈仁愛中心聯合會”（老查注：這個教會的原文名稱是葡萄牙語，翻譯成英語是：Central Spiritual Charitable Union of Vegetable。沒有查到標準的中文譯名，所以隻好意譯成中文。這名字透著的不是一般的古怪，一看就是嗑藥大仙們給取的。）的虔誠信徒們相信他們隻能通過飲用含有非法致幻劑二甲基色胺的霍斯卡茶才能理解上帝。（老查注：霍斯卡是一種產於巴西亞馬遜河流域熱帶雨林中的草本植物。現在還查不到標準的中文譯名，所以隻好用音譯。這個東西的土著名稱讀音很像“壞茶”，哈哈，還真是名副其實。）注意，他們僅僅是相信藥物能幫助他們理解，這就足夠了。他們不需要給出任何證據。相反的，有大量的證據表明大麻可以減緩癌症病人化療時的惡心和不適。但是最高法院還是在2005年裁定任何醫療上使用大麻的病人都會遭到聯邦法律的追究（甚至在那些大麻特殊用途合法化的少數州也一樣）。宗教又一次成了王牌。設想一下某藝術欣賞協會的會員們在法庭上辨稱他們“相信”使用致幻劑可以增進他們對印象派或超現實主義畫作的理解，結果會怎樣。可是，當那個教會提出等價的要求，這個國家的最高法院就給與支持。這就是宗教作為護身符的力量。