“A FIRE STRONG ENOUGH TO CONSUME THE HOUSE:” THE WARS OF RELIGION AND THE RISE OF THE STATE
“A FIRE STRONG ENOUGH TO CONSUME THE HOUSE:” THE WARS OF RELIGION AND THE RISE OF THE STATE
复制标题
“一场大火足以烧毁房子：”宗教战争与国家崛起
DOI：
10.1111/j.1468-0025.1995.tb00073.x
复制
发表时间：
1995
期刊：
影响因子：
0.4
通讯作者：
W. Cavanaugh
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
W. Cavanaugh
1993年9月，芝加哥的世界宗教议会发表了一项名为“走向全球伦理”的宣言，旨在为世界宗教找到共同的伦理价值观。声明中最具争议性的部分之一是谴责以宗教名义发动的战争。“我们一次又一次地看到宗教领袖和成员煽动侵略、狂热、仇恨和仇外心理，甚至煽动暴力和血腥冲突并使之合法化。宗教经常被滥用于纯粹的权力政治目标，包括战争。我们充满了厌恶。“世界和平议会是否采取和平主义立场？虽然暴力一般都受到谴责，但这份文件远远没有把宗教人士从世界军队中召唤出来。只有以宗教的名义杀人才是该死的;以国家的名义流血不会受到这种蔑视。那么，以宗教的名义杀人有什么错呢？答案可以从宣言中隐含的“宗教”定义中得出。宗教被认为是一个与私人价值观有关的问题。个人的公开和致命的忠诚属于国家。我在这篇文章中的目的将集中在以宗教的名义杀人的厌恶是如何被用来合法化的最终忠诚现代国家的转移。具体来说，我将考察16和17世纪欧洲所谓的“宗教战争”是如何被约翰·罗尔斯、朱迪思·什克拉尔和杰弗里·斯托特等理论家作为现代自由主义的奠基时刻而唤起的。
In September of 1993, the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago issued a declaration called "Towards a Global Ethic" meant to locate ethical values common to the world's religions. One of the most emphatic parts of the statement is that condemning wars waged in the name of religion. "Time and again we see leaders and members of religions incite aggression, fanaticism, hate and xenophobia—even inspire and legitimize violent and bloody conflicts. Religion often is misused for purely power-political goals, including war. We are filled with disgust." Is the Parliament of the World's Religions taking a pacifist stand? Well, no. While violence in general is condemned, the document stops well short of calling religious people out of the armies of the world. Only killing in the name of religion is damned; bloodshed on behalf of the State is subject to no such scorn. What is wrong, then, with killing in the name of religion? The answer can be derived from the definition of "religion" implicit in the declaration. Religion is assumed to be a matter pertinent to the private sphere of values. The individual's public and lethal loyalty belongs to the State. My purpose in this essay will be to focus on the way revulsion to killing in the name of religion is used to legitimize the transfer of ultimate loyalty to the modern State. Specifically I will examine how the so-called "Wars of Religion" of sixteenthand seventeenth-century Europe are evoked as the founding moment of modern liberalism by theorists such as John Rawls, Judith Shklar, and Jeffrey Stout.1 will let Shklar tell the familiar tale: