同性婚姻合法化:为了政治野心,牺牲民众信仰自由Same-sex marriage: religious liberty sacrificed to political ambition

历史给过我们很多教训,其中之一便是小人居高位定给社会带来巨大的灾害。这些灾害可能由好几个因素造成,比如:逐渐侵犯其他人的权利、使人失去自由、或者设立一些限制民众言论自由与思想自由的政策使人们失去思考能力。

It is one of the lessons of history that the actions of small-minded men often will bring about great calamities. Sometimes the calamities are the result of the gradual encroachment of control, of the loss of liberty, the loss of the ability to think things through, the triumph of the thought police.

剥夺信仰自由对社会带来的影响,绝不仅是在政府缺失几个席位那么简单。麦克恩滕博的政治蓝图已经走到混乱的边缘,这都归功于他的政治野心和他那些左派自由党同僚的协助。

The furore over religious liberty is about more than the loss of a few seats or government. The political landscape is verging on chaos because of the ambition of Malcolm Turnbull and his lefty acolytes in the Liberal Party.

Source 原文: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/samesex-marriage-religious-liberty-sacrificed-to-political-ambition/news-story/f7f28387c204333ea3af99470dd6cbf1

freedom.jpg

在同性婚姻立法后,他们反对通过“增加对信仰自由保护”修订案,他们企图支撑起一个失败的政府和一个傲慢的总理,希望在政治历史上留下印记。而这一切,恰恰证明他们是多么渺小的政治生物,对历史毫无所知。从前支持他们的保守派选民,被他们逼上绝路。

In their desire to prop up a failed government and a hubristic Prime Minister who wants to make his mark on history they have proved, by opposing the amendments for religious liberty in relation to the introduction of same-sex marriage, that they are small political creatures who know no history. They leave conservative voters nowhere to go.

美国前总理富兰克林 罗斯福在帮助英国打败纳粹时,制定了基于四个自由的一系列政策:言论自由、信仰自由、免于匮乏、免于恐惧。1948年,这四项自由成为联合国《人权宣言》的核心内容。

Remember the four freedoms on which US president Franklin Roosevelt based his policy of aid to Britain in the war against the Nazis? They were freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear. Later those freedoms made up the core of the UN’s 1948 Declaration of Human Rights.

今天的澳大利亚,信仰自由被认为毫不重要,一切皆因为自由党内6个我行我素的议员,与反对宗教信仰的工绿两党联合,至于有一些宗教领袖被一些袋鼠法庭、人权机构或者人权委员会进行不公正的审判,他们毫不在意。

Freedom of religion is not a pressing consideration in Australia today because of six self-styled libertarians who have decided to make common ground with the anti-religious Labor and Greens, who care not one jot if a few bishops get hauled before our extrajudicial kangaroo courts, the human rights boards or commissions.

现任总理尝试屈尊讨好选民,他会首先考虑信仰自由。而现在,正如约翰 霍华德所说,滕博“不再理会对信仰自由的保护议题”,含糊其辞,一拖再拖。

The Prime Minister condescendingly attempted to reassure voters that he was primarily a supporter of freedom of religion. He has been exposed, as John Howard put it, “kicking the can of religious freedom down the road” into the nebulous future.

五百万投票反对同性婚姻立法的选民,不会再被愚弄。他们按照原则办事,投出了自己的否定票。即使澳大利亚律政部长乔治 布兰迪 George Brandis煽情地演讲支持同性婚姻合法化,这些选民仍然清楚地知道,他们这一张否定票与婚姻无关,与个人尊严无关!个人的尊严并不取决于是否能够结婚!

The five million people who voted against introducing same-sex marriage are not fooled by this. They voted No on principle. They knew this vote was not really about marriage, or — despite Attorney-General George Brandis’s emotional speech — about the dignity of individuals, which is not dependent on the ability to marry.

这一次的投票,是关乎改变我们对于性别、性关系、自然家庭结构的理解。关于性关系道德的教导,不论基督教还是其他宗教,没有任何一个宗教会接受将同性性关系纳入其教导内容。因此,西悉尼的选区投票反对同性婚姻立法。

It was about changing our view of sex, sexual relationships and the natural family structure. No religion, Christian or otherwise, will ever accept that change as part of its teaching on sexual morality. Hence the vote against same-sex marriage in the electorates in western Sydney.

这些选区是澳大利亚信仰机构最多的选区,许多人都与信仰相关。但事实与那些用沙利亚法来那些恐吓与分散选民的宣传不同,因为投否定票的并不只是穆斯林选民。只有在Blaxland这个选区,穆斯林占有29.2%,但那区也有19.2%的选民是天主教信徒,有13.4%的选民属于无宗教信仰人士。在新南威尔士州最为多元化的Fowler选区,否定票占有63.7%,该选区有26.7%的选民是天主教徒,19.8%的选民为佛教徒,6.4%的选民为穆斯林。

These seats have a high number of people who have a religious affiliation, some of the highest in Australia. But contrary to the propaganda designed to scare and split voters by shamefully raising the spectre of sharia, it is not just a Muslim vote. Only one seat, Blaxland, has a preponderance of Muslims at 29.2 per cent, but they are followed by Catholics at 19.2 per cent. “No religion” makes up just 13.4 per cent. In Fowler, the most multicultural area in NSW, the No vote was 63.7 per cent and Catholics comprise 26.7 per cent, Buddhists 19.8 per cent and Muslims 6.4 per cent.

这部分人被忽视了,特别是媒体,在Fairfield展览馆举行的万人反对同性婚姻立法的集会,媒体对此完全不报道。这两个选区的投票结果出来后,媒体机构感到非常惊讶,试图将这些选民描述成“未被主流文化同化的少数民族”。工党和自由党内的左翼的伎俩都是如此,如出一辙。

This demographic has been ignored by everyone, especially the media, which did not bother to cover a rally for the No side at Fairfield showground that attracted 10,000. Media organisations got a big shock after the vote and tried to explain it as the expression of a minority of unassimilated immigrants. It appears the Labor Party and left-leaning Liberals are doing the same.

但其实这些人知道什么是真正的自由,什么不是真正的自由。许多人远道而来,因其在原来的国家,思想和行动的自由受到严重剥夺。在澳大利亚,他们发现这个国家平静安稳,不论信仰如何,大家能和平共处。在这些区,东正教基督徒可能有穆斯林邻居,他们和平相处,而不是讨论沙利亚法和女性割礼。政客和评论家们应该意识到,那些投“否定票”的人们所表达的是对传统家庭价值观尊重和对信仰和文化的遵守。他们也应该意识到,即使不是外来文化移民,很多本土澳洲人也拥有这样的观点。

But these people know what freedom is and what it is not. Many have fled countries where their freedom of thought and action was severely curtailed, and found in Australia under the rule of law a new peaceful coexistence, sometimes with co-religionists of their former persecutors. In these areas Orthodox Christians live near Muslim neighbours, and rather than raising the false prospect of sharia and female genital mutilation, politicians and commentators would do well to realise that a No vote there was an expression of traditional family values and relig¬ious and cultural observance. They also would do well to realise it is something shared by many other Australians outside migrant communities.

评论家们认为只有在同性婚姻立法的民调中投出了反对票的40%澳大利亚人要求有传统的教育,这想法是错误的。前总理霍华德认为,传统价值观对于绝大部分澳洲家庭来说,是非常重要的。澳大利亚有很大一部分孩子进入私立学校,特别是教会学校。将近三分之一的澳大利亚孩子在私立学上学,四分之一以上的孩子在天主教学校上学,这里面肯定有不少投了票支持同婚的人们。

Commentators who pigeonhole the conservative vote in Australia as a 40 per cent rump of No voters in the same-sex marriage survey are wrong. As Howard understood, traditional family values are important to most Australians. One reflection of this is in the high number of children attending non-government schools, especially religious schools, and that must include many Yes voters. Nearly one-third of Australian children are in the non-government sector, more than one-quarter of those in Catholic schools.

那些在婚姻问题和性观念上持守传统教导的学校,很快将面临一场法律之战。如果一对同性恋伴侣将他们的孩子送到天主教或者基督教学校,当学校教导孩子们婚姻的定义,性关系与繁衍下一代有关,孩子是由一个母亲和一个父亲所生的,若这对同性恋伴侣反对这样的教导,会出现什么情况?学校是否会被对方利用反歧视法告上法庭?天主教的神父霍巴特就曾因为他的册子《不要混淆婚姻》而被告上法庭。在西澳,左翼分子已经开始企图利用《反歧视法》来限制教会学校的宗教自由权利。

The prospect of lawfare against schools that uphold traditional teaching on marriage and sexual morality is pertinent to the debate.

What will happen when a gay couple who have enrolled their child in a Catholic or other Christian school objects to the teaching on the sacrament of marriage, which has at its centre the reproductive sexual relationship and the statement that you are born of a mother and father? Will the school be taken to the anti-discrimination tribunal, as was Catholic Archbishop of Hobart Julian Porteous? After all, that is what the contentious booklet Don’t Mess with Marriage was about. In Western Australia, using anti-discrimination legislation, the left already is trying to limit the exemptions for religious schools.

十九世纪自由主义思想家约翰·斯图尔特·密尔曾说,“自由的基本要素是良心的自由….思想的自由。”若他看到当今我行我素的毫无底线的自由主义者,他定会震惊不已。

It is doubtful that John Stuart Mill would have been impressed by our do-it-yourself libertarians. The essential element of freedom, he said, was “liberty of conscience … liberty of thought”.

信仰自由并不是去考察可以量化的表格。信仰不是用来量化的表格。信仰是思维体系,反映在人们的生活方式中。任何压制思想的政府,都是在推行极权统治,与倡导自由背道而驰。

Religious liberty is not just about the freedom to observe rubrics. Religion is not about rubrics. It is about a way of thought reflected in a way of life. Any government that opens the door to a suppression of that is not about liberty but about something akin to the diktats of Big Brother.