正文
If the advocates of apartheid had their wits about them they would claim - for all I know truthfully - that allowing mixed races is against their religion. A good part of the opposition would respectfully tiptoe away. And it is no use claiming that this is an unfair parallel because apartheid has no rational justification. The whole point of religious faith, its strength and chief glory, is that it does not depend on rational justification. The rest of us are expected to defend our prejudices. But ask a religious person to justify their faith and you infringe 'religious liberty'.
恕我直言，如果那些支持種族隔離的人有點腦子的話，他們就會聲稱允許種族混雜和他們的宗教相左。如此一來大部分反對的人就會禮敬有加，悄悄閉嘴。指責這樣的類比不公平是徒勞的，因為種族隔離本來也就沒有理性的基礎。關於宗教信仰，它的力量和主要榮耀的關鍵所在就是，它根本不是建立在理性的基礎上的。我們其他人有點偏見還要為之竭力辯護。但是勞駕一個宗教人士為其宗教辯護，您可就侵犯了“宗教自由”了。
Little did I know that something pretty similar would come to pass in the twenty-first century. The Los Angeles Times (10 April 2006) reported that numerous Christian groups on campuses around the United States were suing their universities for enforcing anti-discrimination rules, including prohibitions against harassing or abusing homosexuals. As a typical example, in 2004 James Nixon, a twelve-year-old boy in Ohio, won the right in court to wear a T-shirt to school bearing the words 'Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!' The school told him not to wear the T-shirt - and the boy's parents sued the school. The parents might have had a conscionable case if they had based it on the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. But they didn't: indeed, they couldn't, because free speech is deemed not to include 'hate speech'. But hate only has to prove it is religious, and it no longer counts as hate. So, instead of freedom of speech, the Nixons' lawyers appealed to the constitutional right to freedom of religion. Their victorious lawsuit was supported by the Alliance Defense Fund of Arizona, whose business it is to 'press the legal battle for religious freedom'.
我當時還沒太到到類似的事情也會在二十一世紀發生。2006年4月10日的《洛杉磯時報》報道說很多美國校園基督教團體正在因為學校推行包括禁止騷擾和辱罵同性戀者的反歧視校規而起訴校方。一個典型的例子是，在2004年，俄亥俄州的一個二十歲的小夥子，詹姆斯。尼克鬆，贏得法庭準許他把印有“同性戀是罪惡，伊斯蘭是謊言，墮胎是謀殺，有些事就是非黑即白。”字樣的體恤衫穿到學校。校方告訴他不要在學校穿，他的父母就把學校給告了。他的父母如果依據憲法第一修正案對言論自由的保障來打官司，他們的訴訟也許會是個良心上說得過去的案子。但是他們沒有：確實，他們也沒法這麽做，因為言論自由本來就不包括“仇恨言論”。但是仇恨隻要能證明和宗教有關就不再被看作是仇恨了。所以，尼克鬆的律師選擇了用憲法中的宗教自由條款而不是言論自由來起訴。他們所贏的官司受到亞利桑那聯合辯護基金會的支持，該基金會的宗旨就是“促進為宗教自由而鬥爭”。
The Reverend Rick Scarborough, supporting the wave of similar Christian lawsuits brought to establish religion as a legal justification for discrimination against homosexuals and other groups, has named it the civil rights struggle of the twenty-first century: 'Christians are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian.' Once again, if such people took their stand on the right to free speech, one might reluctantly sympathize. But that isn't what it is about. The legal case in favour of discrimination against homosexuals is being mounted as a counter-suit against alleged religious discrimination! And the law seems to respect this. You can't get away with saying, 'If you try to stop me from insulting homosexuals it violates my freedom of prejudice.' But you can get away with saying, 'It violates my freedom of religion.' What, when you think about it, is the difference? Yet again, religion trumps all.
瑞克。斯卡爾博羅牧師，此公正在支持一波類似的基督教訴訟案，以期把宗教作為歧視同性戀和其他團體的合法辯護理由，他把這叫做二十一世紀的民權鬥爭：“基督徒必須站出來捍衛當一個基督徒的自由。”還是一樣的，這種人如果站在言論自由的立場，可能人們就不那麽同情他們了。但他們不是這麽做的。這些支持歧視同性戀的法律案件是作為對宗教歧視的反訴而發起的！ 而且法律好像很買賬。你要是說“你阻止我羞辱同性戀那你就是侵犯了我行使偏見的自由”，那可不行。但是如果說：“你侵犯了我宗教的自由”，那就沒事。想一想，有什麽不同嗎？然而，宗教又一次無往不勝。
恕我直言，如果那些支持種族隔離的人有點腦子的話，他們就會聲稱允許種族混雜和他們的宗教相左。如此一來大部分反對的人就會禮敬有加，悄悄閉嘴。指責這樣的類比不公平是徒勞的，因為種族隔離本來也就沒有理性的基礎。關於宗教信仰，它的力量和主要榮耀的關鍵所在就是，它根本不是建立在理性的基礎上的。我們其他人有點偏見還要為之竭力辯護。但是勞駕一個宗教人士為其宗教辯護，您可就侵犯了“宗教自由”了。
Little did I know that something pretty similar would come to pass in the twenty-first century. The Los Angeles Times (10 April 2006) reported that numerous Christian groups on campuses around the United States were suing their universities for enforcing anti-discrimination rules, including prohibitions against harassing or abusing homosexuals. As a typical example, in 2004 James Nixon, a twelve-year-old boy in Ohio, won the right in court to wear a T-shirt to school bearing the words 'Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!' The school told him not to wear the T-shirt - and the boy's parents sued the school. The parents might have had a conscionable case if they had based it on the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. But they didn't: indeed, they couldn't, because free speech is deemed not to include 'hate speech'. But hate only has to prove it is religious, and it no longer counts as hate. So, instead of freedom of speech, the Nixons' lawyers appealed to the constitutional right to freedom of religion. Their victorious lawsuit was supported by the Alliance Defense Fund of Arizona, whose business it is to 'press the legal battle for religious freedom'.
我當時還沒太到到類似的事情也會在二十一世紀發生。2006年4月10日的《洛杉磯時報》報道說很多美國校園基督教團體正在因為學校推行包括禁止騷擾和辱罵同性戀者的反歧視校規而起訴校方。一個典型的例子是，在2004年，俄亥俄州的一個二十歲的小夥子，詹姆斯。尼克鬆，贏得法庭準許他把印有“同性戀是罪惡，伊斯蘭是謊言，墮胎是謀殺，有些事就是非黑即白。”字樣的體恤衫穿到學校。校方告訴他不要在學校穿，他的父母就把學校給告了。他的父母如果依據憲法第一修正案對言論自由的保障來打官司，他們的訴訟也許會是個良心上說得過去的案子。但是他們沒有：確實，他們也沒法這麽做，因為言論自由本來就不包括“仇恨言論”。但是仇恨隻要能證明和宗教有關就不再被看作是仇恨了。所以，尼克鬆的律師選擇了用憲法中的宗教自由條款而不是言論自由來起訴。他們所贏的官司受到亞利桑那聯合辯護基金會的支持，該基金會的宗旨就是“促進為宗教自由而鬥爭”。
The Reverend Rick Scarborough, supporting the wave of similar Christian lawsuits brought to establish religion as a legal justification for discrimination against homosexuals and other groups, has named it the civil rights struggle of the twenty-first century: 'Christians are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian.' Once again, if such people took their stand on the right to free speech, one might reluctantly sympathize. But that isn't what it is about. The legal case in favour of discrimination against homosexuals is being mounted as a counter-suit against alleged religious discrimination! And the law seems to respect this. You can't get away with saying, 'If you try to stop me from insulting homosexuals it violates my freedom of prejudice.' But you can get away with saying, 'It violates my freedom of religion.' What, when you think about it, is the difference? Yet again, religion trumps all.
瑞克。斯卡爾博羅牧師，此公正在支持一波類似的基督教訴訟案，以期把宗教作為歧視同性戀和其他團體的合法辯護理由，他把這叫做二十一世紀的民權鬥爭：“基督徒必須站出來捍衛當一個基督徒的自由。”還是一樣的，這種人如果站在言論自由的立場，可能人們就不那麽同情他們了。但他們不是這麽做的。這些支持歧視同性戀的法律案件是作為對宗教歧視的反訴而發起的！ 而且法律好像很買賬。你要是說“你阻止我羞辱同性戀那你就是侵犯了我行使偏見的自由”，那可不行。但是如果說：“你侵犯了我宗教的自由”，那就沒事。想一想，有什麽不同嗎？然而，宗教又一次無往不勝。
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
