Ideology and Christianity in Japan
Ideology and Christianity in Japan
复制标题
日本的意识形态和基督教
DOI：
10.1080/14755611003688043
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Satomi Horiuchi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Satomi Horiuchi
不要使这些项目的政治性降低;事实上，无论多么真实，同情心仍然可能成功地掩盖了反同性恋议程”（第91页）。最后一章，“得到“我们”应得的“，是关于主流美国得到它应得的容忍同性恋者在其中间。什么是美国应该容忍同性恋？艾滋病，9/11和未来可能的恐怖袭击。布拉克解释的保守神学史认为，这些都是上帝对美国恶行的惩罚。此外，Burack还提供了文本证据，证明保守派经常将同性恋者与希特勒、纳粹主义、恐怖分子、撒旦和撒旦主义联系在一起。对于那些被这种花言巧语所说服的人来说，同性恋的危害相当于“摧毁美国”（第128页）。巴拉克正确地坚持认为，“这种言论授权侵略”（第106页），但是，这可能更糟，这种言论甚至不是针对同性恋者本身：“相反，它是针对那些不使用法律和社会政策的杠杆来惩罚和禁止同性恋的美国人。归根结底，这些美国人--宽容、冷漠或仅仅是被误导--是把上帝的愤怒降到美国身上的“我们”。我对罪、性和民主的唯一批评是，它没有得到严格的论证。每一章都有大量的信息，但这些信息并不总是组织得很清楚，读者也不总是清楚这些信息与本章的整体论点有什么关系。总之，《罪、性和民主》对美国左翼围绕宗教、性和政治的学术辩论做出了杰出的贡献（这本书显然采取了左翼立场，保守派读者不太可能认真对待）。此外，它将感兴趣的导师都在高级本科生和研究生水平。特别是，它在理论上是复杂的，教师可以利用它来挑战或中断（1）保守基督教的本质主义理解，（2）肤浅的自由主义/原教旨主义或进步/落后的二元关系，（3）肤浅的宗教与政治框架- Burack的解释和分析是微妙的，足以破坏所有这三个。
not make these projects any less political; indeed, however authentic, compassion may still successfully camouflage an antigay agenda’ (p. 91). The last chapter, ‘Getting what “we” deserve’, is about mainstream America getting what it deserves for tolerating gays and lesbians in its midst. What does America deserve for tolerating homosexuality? AIDS, 9/11 and possible future terrorist attacks. The conservative theological history that Burack explicates argues that these are God’s punishments for America’s misdeeds. In addition, Burack provides textual evidence for the claim that conservatives often rhetorically associate gays and lesbians with Hitler, Nazism, terrorists, Satan and Satanism. For those who are persuaded by this rhetoric, the harms of homosexuality amount to ‘nothing less than the destruction of America’ (p. 128). Burack rightly insists that ‘such rhetoric authorizes aggression’ (p. 106), but, and this may be worse, this rhetoric is not even directed at gays and lesbians themselves: ‘rather, it is aimed at Americans who do not use the levers of law and social policy to punish and proscribe homosexuality. In the final analysis, these Americans – tolerant, indifferent or merely misled – are the “we” who bring down God’s wrath on America’ (p. 115). The only criticism I have of Sin, sex, and democracy is that it was not tightly argued. There is a great deal of information in each chapter, but that information is not always clearly organised, and it is not always clear to the reader how it relates to the chapter’s overall argument. In sum, Sin, sex, and democracy is an excellent contribution to the academic debates on the left surrounding religion, sexuality and politics in America (the book so clearly takes a leftist position that it is unlikely to be taken seriously by conservative readers). In addition, it will be of interest to instructors both at the advanced undergraduate and graduate level. In particular, it is theoretically sophisticated in ways that instructors could utilise it to challenge or interrupt (1) essentialist understandings of conservative Christianity, (2) superficial liberal/fundamentalist or progressive/backwards binaries and (3) a superficial religion vs. politics framework – Burack’s interpretation and analysis is subtle enough to undermine all three of these.