池田氏の記事が引用している記事が引用している記事
ARGUMENT
Islam Will Not Have Its Own ‘Reformation’
Stop expecting a Muslim Martin Luther. No two religions follow the same historical path.
BY NICK DANFORTHNick Danforth is a Ph.D. candidate in history at Georgetown University studying 20th-century Turkey. He writes about Middle East politics, history, and maps at Midafternoon Map.JANUARY 2, 2015
イスラム教は時代遅れで、政教分離、世俗主義には程遠い、キリスト教のようなルターの宗教改革のようなものが起きるべき、という意見に対して、政教分離と言ったって、カソリックと国家が分離しただけで、イングランド国教会と国家のように、政教は合致していたわけだし、政教分離、世俗主義にいたる道筋というのも、国によってかなり異なる、と。
宗教的な教義や聖典の解釈ではなく、政治的勢力争いが、宗教のあり方、信仰まで影響するのであって、キリスト教そのものに世俗主義が内在していた、などというのは無理がある。歴史上は、同じ聖典をいろいろ解釈して異なる結論が出ているものだ、と。
ーーーイスラム教やキリスト教が、本質的に、不寛容であるとか、過激である、という主張には、無理があるわけですね。
Reforming Islam
Where change comes from
Jan 7th 2015, 17:05 BY B.C.
上記、記事を引用して、政教分離、世俗主義に関して、プロテスタントが先頭で、カソリックが追いかけ、そのはるか後方にイスラム教があるかのように、表象するのはまずい、と。
メディアでは取り上げられないが、イスラム教徒のなかに、すでに、反テロ、反打ち首、反勢力争いを唱える一派もあるのであって、外からではなく、内側から改革があるだろうが、しかし、どのような道筋をたどるかは誰も予想できない、と。
この欧米を先頭に、その後ろに一直線上に、他国、他文化が遅れて、走っている、というイメージは、追いつけ追い越せの、かつての日本の帝国主義者や、現在の欧米出羽の守、また、欧米中心主義者、いや、大半の欧米人がもっている歴史観ではないかな？
しかし、こうした歴史観というのはかなり問題があって、まず
１）目的地が、世俗主義なのか、人間の幸福なのか、何なのか、本当はそれほど明確ではない。
宗教があっても、人間が幸福ならそれで、いいではないか、ということもありえる。
２）かりに、世俗主義を目的地の一つに掲げてても、プロテスタントが先頭とは限らない。
日本のほうがかなり前にいる、ともいえる。
３）世俗主義のありかたがもいろいろありえて、どれが、一番いいと、はっきりといえるかどうかわからない。
４）そして、記事にあるように、世俗主義への道筋は、条件によって、いろいろありえる。
・・・・にもかかわらず、自分たちの間違った歴史観ーーーアメリカ例外主義はそのひとつーーーに基づいて、自分たちのようになれ、他国、他文化に押し付けるのは傲慢なのであります。
ARGUMENT
Islam Will Not Have Its Own ‘Reformation’
Stop expecting a Muslim Martin Luther. No two religions follow the same historical path.
BY NICK DANFORTHNick Danforth is a Ph.D. candidate in history at Georgetown University studying 20th-century Turkey. He writes about Middle East politics, history, and maps at Midafternoon Map.JANUARY 2, 2015
This contrast led some observers (like, say, Bill Maher) to declare we should stop being so politically correct and state the obvious: Islam remains stuck in the Middle Ages.
For most of American history, it would have been self-evident to the majority of American Protestants that the celebrated separation of church and state in the United States only became possible because the Protestant Reformation tamed the Vatican in the 16th century.
American anti-Catholicism was certainly crude but not entirely without reason. The Vatican, after all, didn’t exactly cultivate a progressive image at the time. The church’s leaders proudly proclaimed opposition to crucial aspects of democracy, such as voting. Pope Pius IX, for example, issued a famous 1864 encyclical called the Syllabus of Errors condemning, among other things, liberalism, freedom of conscience, and progress.
For most of Europe’s past, the only thing church leaders and their monarchical counterparts agreed on was that church and state should be united. They just disagreed over who should be holding the reins. In fact, if anything kept church and state separate, it was the power struggle between the two camps.
But while both church and state relied on the other for legitimacy, neither could permanently gain the upper hand for centuries.
The Protestant Reformation finally gave European monarchs like Henry VIII the theological justification to unite church and state under their authority instead of the Vatican’s. Indeed, Protestants only favored the separation of church and state so long as the church in question was the Catholic one; in 1534, when English King Henry VIII split with the Vatican, he made himself the head of the newly proclaimed Church of England. In one version of history, put forward by generations of Protestant historians, this was a triumph of secularism. The state, as embodied by King Henry, had freed itself from the church, as embodied by the pope in Rome.
The king declared himself England’s supreme political and religious leader, the very role that Islamists imagine a caliph would enjoy.
Uniting church and state under protestant kings like Henry only helped facilitate modern secularism because these rulers were more serious about their new-found power than their theology. They wanted their countries to become rich and powerful. In their new roles as religious authorities, they could bend or warp religious rules for earthly end goals.
The church-state relationship developed differently in countries that remained Catholic, like France or Italy. Rather than become leaders of new churches, subsequent revolutionary leaders like Robespierre in France or Garibaldi in Italy sought to abolish Catholic institutions entirely. The French Revolution, for example, confiscated church land, banned monastic orders, and forced priests to swear an oath to the civil constitution (of course, all this involved many more beheadings). The pope and his faithful were, understandably, horrified. The Vatican spent the better part of the 19th century on the political sidelines, refusing to engage with Europe’s secular regimes.
The history of how secularism developed in Protestant and Catholic countries serves as a reminder that politics and circumstance shape religion, and its application to society, far more than abstract theology does. And these forces can change a faith dramatically even while scripture remains the same. The claim that there is something inherently secular or humanist about Christianity hardly holds up against a history of 250 popes who all read the same Bible as Francis and came to completely different conclusions about the role of the church in society.
The real answer is that there’s no single, obvious, historically proven path to modern secularism.
Looking optimistically toward the new year, one lesson from several millennia of church-state conflict in Europe is that even without following any particular model, Muslim countries might just succeed in blazing their own paths, much like the Vatican managed to do, even without a Catholic Martin Luther of its own.
イスラム教は時代遅れで、政教分離、世俗主義には程遠い、キリスト教のようなルターの宗教改革のようなものが起きるべき、という意見に対して、政教分離と言ったって、カソリックと国家が分離しただけで、イングランド国教会と国家のように、政教は合致していたわけだし、政教分離、世俗主義にいたる道筋というのも、国によってかなり異なる、と。
宗教的な教義や聖典の解釈ではなく、政治的勢力争いが、宗教のあり方、信仰まで影響するのであって、キリスト教そのものに世俗主義が内在していた、などというのは無理がある。歴史上は、同じ聖典をいろいろ解釈して異なる結論が出ているものだ、と。
ーーーイスラム教やキリスト教が、本質的に、不寛容であるとか、過激である、という主張には、無理があるわけですね。
Reforming Islam
Where change comes from
Jan 7th 2015, 17:05 BY B.C.
Nick Danforth, the Foreign Policy writer, does a decent job of deconstructing the “Luther” question and showing how posing it reflects a linear, Anglo-Protestant view of history. According to this view there is a single-file march towards secular modernity, with reforming Protestants out in front, Catholics being dragged along a bit reluctantly, and Muslims far behind.
it's not helpful to imagine a single track along which people travel at different speeds.
At this point, many non-Muslims might say, "we don't really care whether Islam is elaborate or stripped-down, we only care whether its followers can be persuaded to renounce terrorism, beheadings, and the pursuit of political power." Well, passionate arguments against all these things are being heard within the world of Islam, although they get less publicity than the violent voices. Look, for example, at the personally courageous stance of Hamza Yusuf, an American-born scholar with a wide following in the Islamic heart-land, in denunciation of Islamic State, its aims and methods. In recent weeks some 300,000 people have used the internet to hear him condemn, in rigorously Islamic terms, the claim of IS to be authentic representatives of the Sunni creed. His voice comes from deep inside scholarly, traditional Islam, just as Luther's came from deep inside sacramental, episcopal Christianity—and many people are listening.
Islam will not be scolded, scorned or aerially bombed into reforming by outsiders; it is deeply immune to external pressure. But it can and will change from within, as the founding texts and traditions are reread and refracted by successive generations. Nobody can predict which way that change will go—and there is not just one, single historical path along which it will or won't progress.
上記、記事を引用して、政教分離、世俗主義に関して、プロテスタントが先頭で、カソリックが追いかけ、そのはるか後方にイスラム教があるかのように、表象するのはまずい、と。
メディアでは取り上げられないが、イスラム教徒のなかに、すでに、反テロ、反打ち首、反勢力争いを唱える一派もあるのであって、外からではなく、内側から改革があるだろうが、しかし、どのような道筋をたどるかは誰も予想できない、と。
この欧米を先頭に、その後ろに一直線上に、他国、他文化が遅れて、走っている、というイメージは、追いつけ追い越せの、かつての日本の帝国主義者や、現在の欧米出羽の守、また、欧米中心主義者、いや、大半の欧米人がもっている歴史観ではないかな？
しかし、こうした歴史観というのはかなり問題があって、まず
１）目的地が、世俗主義なのか、人間の幸福なのか、何なのか、本当はそれほど明確ではない。
宗教があっても、人間が幸福ならそれで、いいではないか、ということもありえる。
２）かりに、世俗主義を目的地の一つに掲げてても、プロテスタントが先頭とは限らない。
日本のほうがかなり前にいる、ともいえる。
３）世俗主義のありかたがもいろいろありえて、どれが、一番いいと、はっきりといえるかどうかわからない。
４）そして、記事にあるように、世俗主義への道筋は、条件によって、いろいろありえる。
・・・・にもかかわらず、自分たちの間違った歴史観ーーーアメリカ例外主義はそのひとつーーーに基づいて、自分たちのようになれ、他国、他文化に押し付けるのは傲慢なのであります。