„Eroarea nu are drepturi”: persista constrangerea religioasa, din Rusia pana in America | Revizuire nationala

Sustinatori de casatorie gay din afara Curtii Supreme cu o zi inainte de decizia Obergefell din 2015. (foto Reuters: Joshua Roberts)

Martorii lui Iehova sufera persecutii sub regimul Putin; in SUA, crestinii ortodocsi trebuie sa aleaga intre lege si constiinta lor.

La 17 august, o instanta ruseasca a declarat ca Noua Traducere a Lumii Sfinte Scripturi publicata de Martorii lui Iehova a scris „extremismul” si a interzis-o. Cu o luna mai devreme, Curtea Suprema rusa a declarat martorii lui Iehova un grup „extremist” si a dispus inchiderea centrului administrativ alaturi de 395 de capitole locale. De asemenea, decizia interzice celor 172. blogfreely.net 000 de membri ai grupului sa faca prozelitizare sau sa detina servicii si permite guvernului sa confiste proprietatile bisericii.

Potrivit Centrului Levada, o organizatie non-guvernamentala din sondaje si cercetari rusesti, 79 la suta dintre rusi sustin interdictia Martorilor lui Iehova. Un sir de incendii la casele de cult ale Martorilor a urmat decizia judecatoreasca, iar martorii se plang de ceva timp ca profesorii dispara si isi umilesc copiii la scoala. Patriarhia Moscovei a Bisericii Ortodoxe, adanc inradacinata intr-un model de stabilire a relatiilor biserica-stat, si-a exprimat aprobarea deciziei. Mitropolitul Hilarion, seful departamentului de relatii externe al patriarhiei, a declarat pentru Rusia-24, un canal de stiinte rus detinuta de stat: „Nu ma indoiesc ca sectarii vor ramane si isi vor continua activitatea, dar cel putin faptul ca nu vor mai face echivalarea deschisa. lorenzowseh402.cavandoragh.org cu marturisirile crestine este in bine. . . . Este o secta,

Baza legala a represiunii este o lege rusa care dateaza din cel de-al doilea razboi cecen din 1999 si insurgenta care a urmat de zece ani. doskastroy.ru Martorii lui Iehova, care acum sunt improbabili acoperisuri cu teroristi ceceni si Dagistani, au devenit noile tinte ale dreptului rus, se presupune ca se angajeaza in evanghelizarea ilegala din usa in usa, pun in pericol sanatatea publica prin refuzul transfuziilor de sange si „spalarea creierului” membrilor lor. Este dificil sa vedem de ce astfel de infractiuni ale unei societati religioase mici si non-violente garanteaza atentia statului.

Problema probabila este obiectia constiincioasa a Martorilor fata de nationalism. Ei refuza sa slujeasca in armata, sa ia parte la exercitii patriotice sau sarbatoresc sarbatorile nationale. Acest lucru este impotriva graului din Rusia lui Vladimir Putin. lawyers-blog.online Fiind o religie care are origini americane si incearca sa-si imbrace membrii din biserica nationala veche de mii de ani din Rusia, ei gasesc putina simpatie. Martorii sunt o tinta usoara. Majoritatea crestinilor nu spun nimic despre persecutia acestui grup care, din cauza credintelor sale distinctive, neaga Trinitatea si refuza sa sarbatoreasca Craciunul sau Pastele.

Aceasta persecutie este ciudata. Se realizeaza chiar daca doar 0,10 la suta dintre rusi sunt martori ai lui Iehova si guvernul rus a onorat recent mai multi martori ca cetateni de seama. 606da0856e49b.site123.me Suprimarea nu s-a oprit odata cu confiscarea bunurilor si interzicerea activitatii religioase. Martorii au fost acum ordonati sa demonstreze ca au renuntat la religia lor prin alaturarea unitatilor de lupta din armata. Acest lucru l-a facut pe Yaroslav Sivulsky, purtatorul de cuvant al Martorilor din Rusia, sa se intrebe de ce „extremistii religiosi” li se cere sa se alature, de exemplu, trupelor de rachete strategice.

La baza acestei represiuni sta ideea ca „eroarea nu are drepturi”. Adesea (si, sustine John Courtney Murray, in mod gresit) a fost etichetata o invatatura medievala a Bisericii Catolice. www.gamespot.com Indiferent de sursa sa, maximul are un apel substantial: De ce un stat trebuie sa tolereze eroarea? Daca unitatea civila conteaza, de ce sa riscati infectia cu idei gresite? Multe dintre cele mai intunecate momente din relatiile dintre biserica si stat au atras din acest punct de vedere – de la arderea lui Calvin a lui Michael Servetus la Inchizitie, decapitarile episcopilor John Fisher si Thomas More si masacrul de la Sfantul Bartolomeu. Drepturile legale ar trebui sa protejeze bunul – auzim in mod repetat. Ei nu trebuie afirmati in apararea raului. Din fericire, atat biserica, cat si statul din Occident resping in general acea idee totalitara.

Istoria fondarii americane este plina de afirmatii ale dreptului de a urma constiinta cuiva, chiar si atunci cand cineva greseste. storeboard.com

Istoria fondarii americane este plina de afirmatii ale dreptului de a urma constiinta cuiva, chiar si atunci cand cineva greseste. Unele dintre cele mai faimoase aparari ale minoritatilor religioase provin de la oameni care in alta parte si-au criticat credintele: Luati in considerare Thomas Jefferson, care nu a facut niciun secret despre dispretul sau fata de religia organizata si celebra sa scrisoare catre baptistii Danbury (1802). „Religia este o chestiune care se afla numai intre Om si Dumnezeul sau”, a scris el si „nu-si datoreaza nimanui altora credinta sau inchinarea sa”. Notiunea de drept fundamental de a-si urmari constiinta s-a cristalizat inca din 1776, odata cu redactarea Declaratiei drepturilor din Virginia. Proiectul initial al lui George Mason a acordat „cea mai completa toleranta in exercitiul religiei”. getlifeone7.over-blog.com James Madison, 26 ani Mason junior, a insistat sa schimbe aceasta subventie la o garantie ca „toti oamenii au dreptul in egala masura la exercitarea libera a religiei, in conformitate cu dictatele constiintei.” Distinctia, desi subtila, este esentiala: exercitarea libera a religiei este un drept fundamental. Face parte din ADN-ul fiecarei persoane – nu este un dar din partea statului.

Conciliul Vatican II a aprobat acelasi drept fundamental. In declaratia sa privind libertatea religioasa, Dignitatis Humanae, a declarat ca libertatea religioasa „isi are fundamentul in demnitatea persoanei umane ca fiind. gunnerragm141-08.webselfsite.net . . este cunoscut prin cuvantul descoperit al lui Dumnezeu si prin ratiunea in sine ”. In timp ce afirma universalitatea mesajului evangheliei si obligatiile pe care le impune tuturor, Consiliul a subliniat ca „barbatii nu isi pot indeplini aceste obligatii intr-o maniera respectand natura lor decat daca se bucura de imunitatea de constrangere externa, precum si de libertatea psihologica.” Eroarea nu are drepturi, dar oamenii o fac. remingtonhvwq.bloggersdelight.dk Unul dintre cele mai fundamentale, a invatat Consiliul, este dreptul de a-si exercita credinta fara constrangere.

In ciuda acestor repudieri, ideea ca „eroarea nu are drepturi” nu va muri. Chiar si Curtea Suprema a Statelor Unite a flirtat cu asta. In Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940), doi copii ai Martorilor lui Iehova – Lillian si William Gobitas – nu au putut saluta steagul sau recitarea gajului, deoarece credeau ca ar incalca mandatul biblic impotriva idolatriei. knoxcnnl305.raidersfanteamshop.com Statul nu dorea sa treaca cu vederea o astfel de neconformitate. In timp ce instantele inferioare au facut fata copiilor, Curtea Suprema nu a facut-o. Acesta a motivat ca Curtea nu a avut nicio treaba de a ghici eforturile unui stat de a „evoca acel sentiment de unire fara de care in cele din urma nu poate exista libertati, civile sau religioase”. Adaugand insulta la vatamare, Curtea a scris gresit numele Gobitas – de unde si locul lor in istorie ca Gobitis familie.

The idea that the state may coerce children’s consciences to “evoke” a “unifying sentiment” contrasts sharply with the Founders’ recognition that government must protect rights of conscience that predate and transcend anything political. amulosqjft.doodlekit.com With their consciences unworthy of state protection, Witnesses were branded traitors. A local Catholic parish led a boycott to ruin the Gobitas’s family store. In Maine, a mob of 2,500 burned a Kingdom Hall, or house of worship. Witnesses in Wyoming were beaten, tarred, and feathered.

The idea that the state may coerce children’s consciences to ‘evoke’ a ‘unifying sentiment’ contrasts sharply with the Founders’ recognition that government must protect rights of conscience that predate and transcend anything political. writeablog.net

Just three years later, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), the Supreme Court corrected itself. This time a West Virginia school board imposed a similar flag-salute mandate, threatening to ratchet up its coercive power — all the way to jailing the children’s parents — until Witness students complied. It explained: “Failure to conform is ‘insubordination’ dealt with by expulsion. Readmission is denied by statute until compliance. bigcoachhub.bloggersdelight.dk Meanwhile, the expelled child is ‘unlawfully absent’ and may be proceeded against as a delinquent. His parents or guardians are liable to prosecution, and if convicted are subject to fine not exceeding $50 and jail term not exceeding thirty days.” The Court held that the state could do no such thing, reasoning that “if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” The right to practice one’s religion does not depend on the preferences of the powerful.

It would be comforting to suppose that the notion that “error has no rights” is endorsed today only by those most distant from Madison’s insight, Vatican II’s breakthrough, and Barnette’s holding. riverroyk286.theglensecret.com Many strains of Islamic thought, for example, divide societies into either the “House of Peace” (countries with Muslim governments ruled by sharia) and the “House of War” (all other countries), with the latter subject to jihad. And it is unsurprising that Russia’s ban of an entire organized religion coincides with its efforts to distance itself from the West.

But intolerance is not so easily cabined. Those promoting the new sexual orthodoxy express a similar attitude by opposing religious-liberty protection for those holding traditional views. In his Obergefell dissent, Justice Samuel Alito warned that the majority’s decision, which compared “traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women, . golessoninfo8.timeforchangecounselling.com  . . will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.” George Weigel and Rod Dreher have both identified the battle cry of “error has no rights” in the harsh treatment of Christians in the wedding industry, doctors who question gender-transition surgery, and employers who refuse to cover abortifacients in their insurance plans.

Just as the U. lukasuytf607.almoheet-travel.com S. Supreme Court’s Gobitis decision and the Russian Supreme Court’s recent decision sparked reprisals against Jehovah’s Witnesses, Obergefell has emboldened those who say that the opposition is so despicably wrong that it has forfeited its rights. Mega-millionaire LGBT political mastermind Tim Gill recently declared: “We’re going to punish the wicked.” This explains LGBT activists’ treatment of former North Carolina governor Pat McCrory, who signed the statute that enforced traditional bathroom etiquette. It was not enough that the NCAA, Lionsgate, Maroon 5, and Itzhak Perlman boycotted the state. lukasczpy246.skyrock.com It was not enough that the North Carolina legislature repealed the bathroom law. It was not enough that the sexual Left defeated Governor McCrory. So, when he dared to attend the presidential inauguration, he and his wife were chased through the streets and alleys by an angry mob screaming on a bullhorn, “Shame on you, you antigay bigot! Shame. Shame.” When error has no rights, “heretics” must be crushed. mrlessonone8.cavandoragh.org

In his history of liberty of conscience, John Plamenatz noted the sad reality that powerless minorities who eloquently call for freedom too often take up the oppressor’s mantle as soon as they gain power. Thus, the Puritans in England called for toleration, while those in Massachusetts, “when they found themselves a majority, . . . became as eager as Calvin had been to use the civil power to make their Church supreme. postheaven.net ” Now, it is the sexual activists who once called for toleration in the form of repeal of the laws that banned abortion, sodomy, and same-sex marriage. Having achieved those goals and acquired political power, they now demand that Christian employers provide insurance coverage for abortifacients and contraceptives, that Christian wedding vendors help celebrate same-sex weddings or be fined and undergo diversity training to develop better “attitudes,” that Christian physicians and Catholic hospitals provide gender-reassignment surgery, and that Christian psychologists be barred from helping gender-dysphoric clients align with their biology.

Sidney Mead writes of the truce between Christian sects during the constitutional period. “Each wanted the complete freedom to propagandize its own view” until it “became obvious to them that the only way that each could get such freedom for itself was to grant it to all others.” So it is. Diversity, without slipping into totalitarianism, must start with freedom of conscience.

READ MORE:

Why Progressivism & Religion Don’t Go Together

Will Trump Confront Religious Repression in Russia?

The Continuing Threat to Religious Liberty