In a world waging war with words, how do we know what to believe?

    The classic illustration of how our understanding or belief is related to the truth, is the one used by Stephen Covey and others. In the illustration, a ship was travelling in the night, when the person on duty saw a light directly ahead, and notified the captain that they were on a collision course with another ship. Wanting to avoid a collision, the captain of the ship sent a message to the other ship, “Change course 20 degrees starboard (to the right).”  The reply came back, “Unable to comply. Suggest you change your course 20 degrees to starboard.” As the light got closer, the captain again sent the message, “Change course 20 degrees starboard.” Again the reply came back, “Unable to comply. You should change your course 20 degrees to starboard.” Angry now, the captain sent the message, “I am a military destroyer. I insist that you change your course 20 degrees to starboard.”  The reply came back, “Unable to comply. Suggest you change your course 20 degrees to starboard. I am a lighthouse.”

    The story has become a classic because it illustrates so clearly how our understanding, or belief, can be very different from the reality that is “out there.” We can give the Reality that is “out there” the label “Big R” and the reality as we understand it, the belief that is “in here”, in our minds, the label “little r.” To avoid a collision, the ship’s captain had to adjust his “little r” to be consistent with “Big R”. And so it is with all of us.

    With the Internet so available today, we are bombarded with messages that disagree with each other. So what are we to believe? So many different perspectives tend to overwhelm us, which is why it is popular today to believe that there is no absolute truth. “What’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me.” Oh? “I believe you’re a ship, you believe you’re a lighthouse. What’s true for you is not true for me, so I’m going to just continue straight ahead.”

    Eventually, if we’re thinking, we realize that Reality stands apart from our belief of it, just as the lighthouse stands on the rock, warning of danger, whether the ship’s captain believes it or not.  To truly achieve success, then, we must be constantly seeking to bring “little r” more and more in line with “Big R”.

 
    In trying to know what to believe, one of the questions we have to consider is, “How are our beliefs shaped in the first place?” It doesn’t take a genius to realize that babies don’t have beliefs at all, much less firmly held ones that they would die for, or kill someone else over. But often, by the time they’re 20, they do. In western civilization, we tend to believe that knowledge is something we discover, and freedom of speech is important. We believe those things. In Islamic tradition, however, knowledge is revealed (by Allah), and freedom of speech has little value at all. That’s what they believe. So for some, whenever freedom of speech violates what Allah has revealed, the conflict in beliefs is worth dying for, or killing someone else for. This at least partially explains the killing of 12 people in the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper, Charlie Hebdo. But how do such divergent beliefs develop, in the first place?

    As we watch the war in the Ukraine, we become more and more aware that the war is the result of different perspectives on the same issues, developed by people who have grown up in the same general area. How did the different perspectives develop? Obviously, it’s because different people were influenced by different viewpoints as they grew up. As individuals, we may like to think we’re brilliant, and too smart to be deceived by propaganda, but for most of us, the only perspectives we have available to us are those we have already been exposed to. Most of us never think an original thought – our originality is limited to the way we mentally rearrange and interpret those ideas to which we have been exposed from outside influences. So two people can be exposed to the same information, and develop different opinions about it, but the differences in opinion become even greater when two people are not even exposed to the same information. Russian media, for example, is known to be controlled by the state, so it appears clear that certain information is being withheld from the Russian audience, and other information, which may not reflect all the information available, is what is broadcast. How can people believe information to which they have never been exposed?
All of us have limited information, so all of us, to a degree, are in the same situation the Russian public is in. We simply don’t have access to all the information there is. From the information we do have, we still have to sort out what is truth, and what is not.

    Fortunately, there are some basic tests of truth that can be applied. One test is whether the information agrees with what I already believe to be true. If it does, then it’s easy to believe it. But that is certainly the case with Russian media broadcasting, that it supports what most of the audience already believes, so that is not a good enough test.  Another test is whether the information is complete. This one is much more helpful. If we consider Russian broadcasting about the war in the Ukraine, we can immediately see that the information is not complete. If we look at almost any religion’s treatment of the views of other religions, we can see that they are not complete. Or if we look at the western media’s treatment of couples living together before marriage, we can see that the whole picture is not being shown. When only part of a much bigger picture is presented, we have reason to question it’s truthfulness. Would it be just as believable if the opposite position were also presented?

    Another test for truth is whether it is coherent, that is, does it have parts of the information that don’t agree with other parts of the information. Within minutes after the Indonesian airliner was shot down over Ukraine, there was communication from the separatists that they had shot down a military airplane. However, when it was revealed that the plane was a civilian airliner, then those same separatists denied any involvement at all. That’s incoherence. The two parts of the story don’t fit together. When we see incoherence, it should make us more alert, because something is wrong.

    One of the difficulties with knowing truth, is the tendency of proof to elude us. Many people have never thought of the difference between proof and evidence, but the difference is profound. Proof is conclusive. It finishes the argument. When something is proven, there is no more room for doubt or argument. Evidence, on the other hand, is not conclusive, but it points in the direction of a logical conclusion. When evidence is presented, it tends to lead to a conclusion, but there is still room for some doubt and discussion. It is often said, then, that proof is elusive, but evidence is all around us.

    We have to take the evidence, ask ourselves which direction it points toward, ask ourselves if it is complete, coherent, and consistent with what I already believe, and when we have done that, we have to decide for ourselves which direction we need to go. If the evidence disagrees with what I already believe, but if it seems to be essentially complete and apparently coherent, then I may need to rethink my personal viewpoint.

    For me, there are two more critical points that affect my evaluation of what is presented as truth. The first one is motive. If I can see that those presenting the information clearly have some benefit to gain if I believe them, they I am immediately suspicious. This is true of the car salesman, but it is especially true of politicians – so anytime profit or power are potential motives, I’m suspicious.

    The second critical point is whether the information is likely to prove true over the long term, or just in the short term, and who it affects. If movies can convince young couples that it is wise to live together before marriage, that may serve their interests in the short term. But what will the long term affects be?  The research shows that it basically doubles their chances of divorcing later on. And does it serve the interests of others equally well? How does it affect children born to the couple? Research shows that it hinders the children in every area of life. Hitler convinced virtually everybody in Germany that his way was right. They believed him.  But the rest of the world responded with an opposite perspective, and today, most Germans would agree that their fathers and grandfathers were wrong, that Hitler was not telling the truth. He was not telling the whole story, he stood to gain if believed, his view took only the short term view, and it did not look after the intersts of others.

    Much more could be said about this topic, but one thing we should realize – children do not have a choice about what to believe, but adults do. If I stay in my own area and limit my input to sources that support what I already believe, I can defend a belief system that does not accurately reflect all that going on in the world.  That is true whether I’m a Russian separatist, a secular westerner, a radical Muslim, or a conservative Christian. Surely, as an adult, I have a responsibility to break that cycle.

    We are not looking for proof. Proof is too elusive. We are looking for enough evidence to justify a commitment. We’re looking for a belief system that seems to be complete, coherent, free of wrong motives, and which over the long term is going to serve the interests of others as well as myself. Evidence that supports such a belief system justifies making a commitment to it. We can make that commitment and still keep an open mind, and time will tell if we have found the truth. Then, as new evidence becomes available, we can make adjustments to our beliefs, without changing the basic requirements – that they be as complete as possible, apparently coherent, free of wrong motives, and serve others over the long term as well as myself.

    The world is waging a war with words, but there is enough evidence out there that we can know what to believe, and be right. I believe that.

Bill Mauldin, publisher and missionary
13 Feb 2015

Nav tādu Greja/pelēkā nokrāsu (nevienas pašas)

    Mēs visi zinām, ka jau kādu laiku kinoteātros tiek izrādīta filma “Greja piecdesmit nokrāsas”. Tā ir filma, kas balstīta uz E.L.Džeimsas slavenā erotiskā romāna pamatiem, un visā pasaulē ir pārdoti vairāk kā 100 miljonu šīs grāmatas kopiju.

    Tā kā šī grāmata ir izdota jau pirms laba laika, ir veikti daži pētījumi, kurus var attiecināt arī uz filmu. Izdevums The Journal of Women's Health ir publicējis divus Mičiganas štata universitātes Cilvēku attīstības un Ģimenes studiju departamenta profesores un priekšsēdētājas Eimijas Bonomi rakstus. Pirmais pētījums tika veikts, lai noteiktu, vai grāmata iedrošina un atbalsta emocionālu un seksuālu vardarbību [1]. Atbilde ir – jā. Otrajā pētījumā tika mēģināts noskaidrot, vai vardarbība, kas atainota grāmatā un realitāte, ko piedzīvo sievietes, kas lasījušas šo grāmatu, ir savstarpēji saistītas [2]. Izrādās, ka tā ir. Pētījumā tika novērota spēcīga saikne starp grāmatas “Greja piecdesmit nokrāsas” lasīšanu un risku sieviešu veselībai (ieskaitot vardarbību, sieviešu padarīšanu par upuriem un ēšanas traucējumus). Citiem vārdiem sakot, ja sieviete lasa “Greja piecdesmit nokrāsas”, viņa vai nu jau cieš no ēšanas traucējumiem un vardarbības, ko nodara “intīms partneris”, vai ir daudz lielāka varbūtība, ka tas notiks nākotnē, salīdzinot ar sievietēm, kas šādas grāmatas nelasa.

    Mēs augstu vērtējam runas brīvību, tāpēc ierobežojumu plašsaziņas līdzekļiem un medijiem nav daudz. Tomēr vai tiešām nav acīmredzami, ka tas viss mūs kaut kā ietekmē? Bērni no spēlēšanās ar rotaļu mašīnītēm un trīsriteņiem tāpat vien neuzaug par komunistiem, džihādistiem, rasistiem, izvarotājiem. Šādas tendences viņos attīstās, piedzīvojot lietas, kas viņus ietekmē, it īpaši, ja konkrētas darbības tiek parādītas kā ļoti pozitīvas. “Greja piecdesmit nokrāsas” pornogrāfiju padara par ko pierastu un normālu. Vēl ļaunāk – tā ataino emocionālu un fizisku vardarbību pret sievietēm kā kaut ko romantisku, nevis iznīcinošu. Ja jaunietis, kura seksuālā identitāte vēl nav pilnveidojusies, noskatās šo filmu, vai mums nevajadzētu sagaidīt, ka tā ietekmēs šī jaunieša uzskatus par pieņemamu seksuālo uzvedību?

    Pētījumi jau pierāda, ka katra ceturtā sieviete cieš no seksuālās vardarbības, ko veic viņas partneris. Un tas notiek mūsdienās, kad sabiedrība šādu vardarbību nosoda. Vai nav sagaidāms, ka vardarbība saasināsies, ja tā tiks atainota kā kaut kas pozitīvs?

    Valda uzskats, ka seksuālo ierobežojumu atcelšana “atbrīvo” cilvēku un ļauj darīt, ko vien viņš vēlas. Bet tas, kas tiek parādīts “Greja piecdesmit nokrāsās” dod vairāk varas tikai vardarbīgajai personai, nevis personai, kas cieš no vardarbības. Vardarbīgais multimiljonārs Kristians aktīvi izseko Anu dažādos veidos, ieskaitot viņas darbavietas iegādi un viņas izsekošanu ar telefona programmas palīdzību. Viņš kontrolē viņas uzvedību, to, ko viņa ēd un ar ko viņa drīkst pavadīt laiku, tādējādi izolējot viņu no draugiem un ģimenes. Viņš Anu pazemo, draud un uzveļ viņai vainu, kā rezultātā Ana baidās sadusmot Kristianu, baidās runāt ar saviem draugiem un ir nedroša par savu identitāti.

    Lai gan tam būtu jāizskatās “seksīgi”, grāmatā iekļauti arī vairāki izvarošanas gadījumi, kad Anu ar varu piespiež nodarboties ar seksu.

    Šī nav pirmā filma pēdējo gadu laikā, kas aplūko “vardarbību intīmo partneru starpā”. Galvenā atšķirība ir tajā, ka pārējās filmas vardarbību vienbalsīgi atzīst par ļaunumu, un ir centušās reālistiski attēlot šausmīgās ciešanas, ko izjūt no vardarbības cietušas sievietes. “Greja piecdesmit nokrāsas” tiek reklamētas kā “neticams pasakas cienīgs mīlasstāsts”, kurā vardarbīga uzvedība tiek atainota kā piemīlīga flirtēšana. Atainojot vardarbību kā kaut ko romantisku, šī filma pārraida bīstamu ziņu par to, ka cilvēku, kas tev dara pāri, ir iespējams izmainīt. Pētījumi un miljoniem no vardarbības cietušo sieviešu pieredze pierāda ko citu.

    Viens no skumjākajiem šīs filmas aspektiem ir tas, ka tā reklamē vardarbību kā kaut ko “romantisku”, apklusinot miljoniem upuru balsu, kas grib tikt sadzirdēti. Šī filma mums principā saka: “Viņa uzvedas tā, it kā viņai nepatika tas, kā pret viņu izturējās. Bet vai tad beigās tas nebija tieši tas, ko viņa vēlējās?”. Vardarbīgi draudi un uzvedība tiek atainoti kā kas izklaidējošs. Vardarbība un spēka pielietošana kļūst pieņemama jo, lai gan Anastasija iesākumā no tā baidās, beigās viņa sāk to arī izbaudīt.

“Greja piecdesmit nokrāsas” mums saka, ka tas ir tas, ko sievietes vēlas – viņas vēlas lai vardarbīgas izvarošanas kultūra turpinātos. Šai kultūrā varas pielietošana ir pieņemama, vardarbība ir kas pozitīvs, un otra cilvēka piekrišana tiek ignorēta. Un visi beigās ir apmierināti.

    Psihiatre Miriama Grosmana to visu ļoti labi apkopo: ““Greja piecdesmit nokrāsas” jūsu meitai parāda, ka sāpes un pazemošana ir kas erotisks, un jūsu dēlam iemāca, ka sievietes vēlas vīrieti, kas kontrolē, iebiedē un draud.”[3]

    Kādā citā rakstā viņa šo domu papildina: ““Greja piecdesmit nokrāsās” parādītās idejas ir bīstamas, un var likt cilvēkiem apjukt par to, kas ir mīlestība un likt tiem pieņemt nepārdomātus lēmumus. Ir milzu atšķirība starp veselīgām un neveselīgām attiecībām, bet filma šīs robežas padara neskaidras, un jūs sākat domāt: “Kas īsti ir veselīgas attiecības? Kas ir slimīgi? Ir tik daudz pelēkā nokrāsu, un... es nezinu, ko domāt.”

    “Mēs runājam par tavu drošību un nākotni. Šeit nav vietas šaubām – intīmas attiecības, kurās valda vardarbība (ar abu pušu piekrišanu vai bez), ir nepieņemamas. Tas viss ir melnbalts. Te nav nevienas pelēkā nokrāsas. Pat ne vienas vienīgas.”[4]

    Kāds ir mans padoms? Neskatieties šo filmu. Mēs noteikti varam iztērēt savu naudu daudz lietderīgāk kā atbalstot sociāli iznīcinošus atkritumus.

Bils Moldins, misionārs un grāmatizdevējs

[1] “Double Crap!” Abuse and Harmed Identity in Fifty Shades of Grey
Amy E. Bonomi, Lauren E. Altenburger, and Nicole L. Walton. Journal of Women's Health. September 2013, 22(9): 733-744. http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jwh.2013.4344
[2] Fiction or Not? Fifty Shades is Associated with Health Risks in Adolescent and Young Adult Females
Bonomi Amy E., Nemeth Julianna M., Altenburger Lauren E., Anderson Melissa L., Snyder Anastasia, and Dotto Irma. Journal of Women's Health. September 2014, 23(9): 720-728. http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jwh.2014.4782
[3] http://www.miriamgrossmanmd.com/parent-survival-guide-to-fifty-shades-of-grey
[4] http://www.megmeekermd.com/2015/02/a-psychiatrists-letter-to-young-people-about-fifty-shades-of-grey/[5] Much of this article is based on Kristen O’Neal’s The Real Abuse at the Heart of ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/film/fifty-shades-grey-and-abuse

There are no shades of grey here (not even one)

     By now, all of us know that the movie, Fifty Shades of Grey, is in the theaters. It’s based on E.L. James’ bestselling erotic novel, which has sold over 100 million copies around the world.

    Since the book has been out for awhile, some research has already been done on it that presumably applies to the movie as well. The Journal of Women’s Health has published two articles by Amy Bonomi, professor and chairperson of Michigan State University’s Department of Human Development and Family studies. The first study [1] was simply to determine if the book promotes emotional and sexual abuse (which it does) and the other one [2] was to see if there was a connection between the violence depicted in the book, and the true life experiences of those women who read the book. Turns out there was. The study showed strong correlations between health risks in women's lives – including violence victimization and disordered eating – and reading Fifty Shades. In other words, if a woman reads Fifty Shades of Grey, she either already has, or is more likely in the future, to suffer from an eating disorder or to suffer violence at the hands of an “intimate partner” than women who do not read such books.

    We value freedom of speech, so we place very few restrictions on the media. And yet, is it not obvious that all mental input has some influence? Children don’t become communists, or jihadists, or racists, or rapists, from riding tricycles and playing with toy cars. They develop those tendencies from experiences that impact them during vulnerable times, and especially if those experiences present certain activities as very positive. Fifty Shades is mainstreaming pornography, but worse than that, it shows the emotional and physical violence against women as romantic rather than destructive. If a young person, whose sexual identity is not yet developed, watches this movie, should we not expect it to influence the way that person views acceptable sexual behavior?

    Research already shows that about 1 woman in 4 experiences abuse at the hands of an intimate partner. And that is with the prevailing social viewpoint that such abuse is wrong. Can we not expect such violence to escalate if it is promoted in the media as positive?

    There is a tendency to think of the removal of all sexual restraints as “empowering.” I’m “free” to do whatever I want. But what is shown in Fifty Shades is empowering only to the abuser, certainly not to the one being abused. Christian, the multimillionaire abuser, actively stalks Ana, including buying the place where she works and tracking her through an app on her phone. He controls her behavior, her eating, and who she is allowed to spend her time with, isolating her from friends and family. He humiliates her, threatens her and blames her. As a result, Ana is afraid of making Christian angry, afraid to talk to her friends, and insecure in her own identity.

    Even though it’s supposed to seem “sexy,” the book even includes several instances of rape, where Ana is coerced into or outright forced to have sex.

    This is not the first movie in recent years to deal with the subject of “Intimate Partner Violence.” The difference is, the others have universally recognized this violence as a desperate evil, and have attempted to realistically deal with the awful suffering many women experience from it. Fifty Shades of Grey is being marketed as “an incredible fairytale love story,” treating the abusive behaviors as adorably flirtatious interaction. By showing the abuse as romantic, this movie sends out the dangerous message that, in the end, you can change your abuser. Research and the experience of millions of abused women, indicate otherwise.

    One of the saddest aspects of this movie is that it markets abuse as “romance,” effectively silencing the voices of millions of victims, who for decades have been trying to be heard. In effect, the movie says, “She acted as if she disliked being mistreated, but in the end, wasn’t it what she really wanted?”  Abusive threats and behavior are presented as playful fun; force ends up being acceptable because, although Anastasia is terrified by it to start with, she ends up enjoying it.

    This is what women want, says Fifty Shades of Grey: the perpetuation of violent rape culture. Here, coercion is acceptable, abuse is shown as positive, and consent is ignored. It all works out well in the end.

    Psychiatrist Dr. Miriam Grossman sums it up well:
    “Fifty Shades of Grey teaches your daughter that pain and humiliation are erotic, and it teaches your son that girls want a guy who controls, intimidates and threatens.” [3]

    In another article, she continues:
    “The bottom line: the ideas of Fifty Shades of Grey  are dangerous, and can lead to confusion and poor decisions about love. There are vast differences between healthy and unhealthy relationships, but the movie blurs those differences, so you begin to wonder: ‘What’s healthy in a relationship? What’s sick? There are so many shades of grey … I’m not sure.’

    “Listen, it’s your safety and future we’re talking about here. There’s no room for doubt: an intimate relationship that includes violence, consensual or not, is completely unacceptable.

    “This is black and white. There are no shades of grey here. Not even one.” [4]

    My advice? Don’t go to see this movie. Surely we can do better than spending money to support such destructive social garbage.[5] 

Bill Mauldin, publisher and missionary

13 Feb 2015

[1] “Double Crap!” Abuse and Harmed Identity in Fifty Shades of Grey
Amy E. Bonomi, Lauren E. Altenburger, and Nicole L. Walton. Journal of Women's Health. September 2013, 22(9): 733-744. http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jwh.2013.4344 
[2] Fiction or Not? Fifty Shades is Associated with Health Risks in Adolescent and Young Adult Females
Bonomi Amy E., Nemeth Julianna M., Altenburger Lauren E., Anderson Melissa L., Snyder Anastasia, and Dotto Irma. Journal of Women's Health. September 2014, 23(9): 720-728. http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jwh.2014.4782 
[3] http://www.miriamgrossmanmd.com/parent-survival-guide-to-fifty-shades-of-grey 
[4] http://www.megmeekermd.com/2015/02/a-psychiatrists-letter-to-young-people-about-fifty-shades-of-grey/[5] Much of this article is based on Kristen O’Neal’s The Real Abuse at the Heart of ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/film/fifty-shades-grey-and-abuse

Am I Charlie? Reflections on the massacre in France

    All France reeled in shock and anger when on 7 January 12 people were killed in the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo. As the news quickly spread around the world, cartoonists responded with satire, sorrow and outpourings of emotion.

    Just as quickly the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie (I am Charlie) began trending worldwide as people joined in solidarity with those whom they believed had died to support freedom of speech. Yet even as they abhorred the killings, others raised questions about the deliberately offensive humour and racial stereotypes prevalent in Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

    How should Christians react?

    Daniel Bourdanné, IFES General Secretary, was quick to comment on the complexity of the situation. ‘As we consider the recent massacre of 12 people at the Charlie Hebdo headquarters in France and the other killings at the kosher supermarket, I think we should have two reactions. Our first of course is to condemn the killings. It is never right to kill another, even if you have been deeply offended by something they have said or done. So we can express our shock and horror that these young men have taken the lives of others. And we can express our sympathy to the families of those who have died, and also to all of the people of France who are grieving deeply.

    ‘Our second reaction should be to ask ‘what is freedom?’ Are we ‘free’ to say absolutely anything? Are we free to promote racial stereotypes, to criticise in any way we choose? With freedom comes great responsibility. I think that this is important to remember as we approach these events with grace and sensitivity.’

    Are we free to say anything?

    Andy Shudall, TSCF New Zealand staff worker, writes from a country where a public figure responded to the killings by saying ‘They deserved it.’ Andy thinks such a reaction is both blatantly stupid and dangerous.

    ‘We must engage in rigorous, complex and thoughtful processes as we contemplate our response both to the wickedness of violence in the name of religion and the publication of offensive cartoons; be they satirical or otherwise.

    ‘It's complicated. Some Charlie Hebdo cartoons are reprehensible and viciously racist. But the murders in the offices of that newspaper were not a strike for justice but an attack against freedom.

    ‘It's complicated because the Muslim population of France are much discriminated against and those cartoons will have fuelled much victimisation of innocents within France and further afield.

    ‘Today I've seen "kill all Muslims" and "wipe out the religious" in discussions and comments. It is complicated because within the outrage against the extremist views which have led to this unconscionable violence is a real seam of xenophobia.

     ‘We need to protect satire - it is vital in healthy societal discussion and it acts toward freedom and against oppression. But we cannot simply wave away bile and prejudice that masquerades as satire.

    It's definitely not complicated to describe the actions of those attackers as evil. It is complicated in the aftermath not to canonise racism and xenophobia.’

    Is there hope for the future?

   Isabelle Veldhuizen, staff with GBU France, who fears that the killings will only encourage further secularization in France, wanted to pull back a little from the politicisation of the event. She agreed with a blog post that called Christians to pray – for the victims’ and the terrorists’ families, for justice – and to remember that we have a clear message of hope. She added, ‘In the past few days I have been pleasantly surprised by how French people reacted: with solidarity and care, rather than anger at Muslims.

    ‘For the future I am a bit afraid (but God is full of surprises so hopefully I'll be wrong!) that this incident will give another pretext for stronger and stronger pushing for secularism, because politics use everything as excuse to go in that direction.

Penny Vinden, IFES

13 Jan 2015

Source: http://ifesworld.org/en/blog/2015/01/am-i-charlie-reflections-massacre-france

Vai es esmu Čārlijs? Pārdomas par notikumiem Francijā

   

Kad 7.janvārī franču satīriskās iknedēļas avīzes “Charlie Hebdo” redakcijā tika nogalināti 12 cilvēki, Franciju pāršalca šoks un dusmas. Ziņām strauji izplatoties pa visu pasauli, karikatūristi uz notikušo atbildēja ar asprātīgām dzēlībām, kā arī paužot skumjas un dažādas citas pāriplūstošas emocijas.

     Vienlaikus ar daudzu cilvēku iesaistīšanos atbalsta akcijā par tiem, kuri, viņuprāt, bija miruši izteiksmes brīvības vārdā, interneta vidē un citur pasaulē milzīgā ātrumā izplatījās arī mirkļa birka #JeSuisCharlie(Es esmu Čārlijs). Lai gan kamēr vieni pauda savu riebumu pret slepkavībām, citi lika aizdomāties par apzināti aizvainojošo humoru un rasu stereotipiem, kas dominēja Čārlija Hebdona karikatūrās.

    Kā uz to vajadzētu reaģēt kristiešiem?

Daniels Bordanē (Daniel Bourdanné), IFES ģenerālsekretārs lieki nekavējās paust savu nostāju par situācijas sarežģītību:“Aplūkojot neseno 12 cilvēku slaktiņu Čārlija Hebdona galvenajā redakcijā Francijā un citām slepkavībām košera lielveikalā, domāju, ka mūsu atbildes reakcijām vajadzētu būt divējādām. Pirmā, protams, būtu nosodīt slepkavības. Nekas neattaisno slepkavību, pat, ja tevi kāds ir aizvainojis ar savu teikto vai izdarīto. Līdz ar to mēs varam paust savu sašutumu un riebumu par to, ka šie jaunie vīrieši ir atņēmuši citu dzīvības. Mēs arī varam paust savu līdzjūtību nogalināto ģimenēm, kā arī visai Francijas tautai, kura ir dziļās sērās. Otrā reakcija varētu būt jautājums: “Kas ir brīvība?” Vai mēs esam “brīvi” paust pilnīgi jebko? Vai mums ir atļauts veicināt rasu stereotipus, kritizēt, kā vien mēs to vēlamies? Līdz ar brīvību nāk liela atbildība. Domāju, ka ir svarīgi šo atcerēties, ļoti uzmanīgi pieejot šiem notikumiem.”

    Vai esam brīvi paust jebko?

     Endijs Šudals (Andy Shudall), Jaunzēlandes studentu kustības (TSCF) darbinieks raksta kā tādas valsts iedzīvātjs, kur kāds sabiedriskais darbinieks atbildēja uz slepkavībām, sakot: “Viņi to bija pelnījuši.” Endijs uzskata, ka šāda atbildes reakcija ir uzkrītoši muļķīga un bīstama.
     “Pārdomājot mūsu atbildi gan attiecībā uz ļaunumu reliģijas vārdā, gan arī aizvainojošu karikatūru publicēšanu, neskatoties uz to, ka tās ir satīriskas, mēs iesaistāmies sarežģītās norisēs.
     Šī situācija nav viegla. Dažas no Čārlija Hebdona karikatūrām ir peļamas un izteikti rasistiskas. Tomēr slepkavības laikraksta redakcijā nebija cīņa par taisnību, bet gan uzbrukums brīvībai.
     Situācija Francijā ir sarežģīta, jo tur mītošie musulmaņi tiek ļoti diskriminēti, un šīs karikatūras lielā mērā ir veicinājušas nevainīgu cilvēku vajāšanas gan Francijā, gan arī ārpus tās.
     Diskusijās un komentāros es redzu “nogalināt visus musulmaņus” un “nost ar visiem reliģiozajiem”. Situāciju sarežģī fakts, ka šī rupjā attieksme pret ekstrēmistu uzskatiem, kas savukārt ir novedusi līdz pārmērīgai vardarbībai, ir pavediens uz patiesu visa svešā (ārzemnieciskā) neieredzēšanu – ksenofobiju.
     Mums ir jāaizsargā satīra - asprātīgie vērojumi un izteikumi par sabiedrībā notiekošo, jo tai ir būtiska loma veselīgās sabiedrības diskusijās, kā arī tā iestājas par brīvību un pret apspiešanu. Tomēr mēs nedrīkstam pieļaut dusmas (žulti) un aizspriedumus, kas uzdodas par satīru.
Pilnīgi noteikti nav grūti šo uzbrucēju darbības nosaukt par ļaunām, bet ir sarežģīti šo notikumu atskaņā nekanonizēt, rasismu un ksenofobiju, padarot to svētu un neaizskaramu"

    Vai nākotnei ir cerība?

     Izabelle Veldhūzena (Isabelle Veldhuizen), Francijas studentu kustības (GBU) darbiniece, kura baidās, ka šīs slepkavības tikai veicinās turpmāku Francijas atdalīšanos no baznīcas, gribēja atkāpties no šī notikuma politizēšanas. Viņa piekrīt kādā blogā paustajam viedoklim, ka kristiešiem ir jālūdz gan par upuru, gan arī teroristu ģimenēm, gan arī par taisnīgumu, kā arī viņa atgādina, ka mums ir skaidra cerības vēsts. Viņa piemetināja: “Pēdējās pāris dienās es esmu patīkami pārsteigta par Francijas iedzīvotāju reakciju uz notikušo, kuri tā vietā, lai paustu dusmas pret musulmaņiem, reaģē ar vienotību un rūpēm.
     Kas attiecas uz nākotni, es baidos (bet Dievs ir pilns pārsteigumu un es ceru, ka es kļūdīšos!), ka šis notikums kalpos, kā vēl viens iegansts spēcīgākai sekularizācijai, jo politiķi izmanto visu kā attaisnojumu, lai dotos pretī tam, ka valsts atdalās no baznīcas.
     Bet kas attiecas uz cilvēkiem, es esmu iedrošināta un patiešām ceru, ka, atbildot uz šo slaktiņu, cilvēki sev uzdos jautājumus par Dievu un to, ko viņi dara ar savu dzīvi."

Penija Vindena (Penny Vinden), IFES
2015.gada 13.janvārī

 

Avots: http://ifesworld.org/en/blog/2015/01/am-i-charlie-reflections-massacre-france