[经验感悟] 读The Economist(5) by MVT [复制链接]

MVT
UID: 2588209

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 148
寄托币: 2195
注册时间: 2009-1-5
精华: 2
帖子: 21

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-6-10 10:09:02 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

2009.04.06第5篇分析

Religion and human rights
The meaning of freedom
Apr 2nd 2009 From The Economist print edition
Why freedom of speech must include the right to “defame” religions
1、作者的写作思路主线（我的评论）
2、文章中应用的写作技巧（我的评论）
3、作者逻辑思维漏洞（我的评论）
4、标出文中的GRE级别词汇（红色）
5、标出文章中的自己认为的好词好句（蓝色）
6、文章对你写作灵感的激发(我的评论)
7、适应于AW中的例子或者思路（栗色加粗）

AT FIRST glance, the resolution on “religious defamation” adopted by the UN’s Human Rights Council on March 26th, mainly at the behest of Islamic countries, reads like another piece of harmless verbiage churned out by a toothless international bureaucracy. What is wrong with saying, as the resolution does, that some Muslims faced prejudice in the aftermath of September 2001? But a closer look at the resolution’s language, and the context in which it was adopted (with an unholy trio of Pakistan, Belarus and Venezuela acting as sponsors), makes clear that bigger issues are at stake.(开头表露对resolution的怀疑:toothless international bureaucracy; bigger issues are at stake)

The resolution says “defamation of religions” is a “serious affront to human dignity” which can “restrict the freedom” of those who are defamed, and may also lead to the incitement of violence. But there is an insidious blurring of categories here, which becomes plain when you compare this resolution with the more rigorous language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 in a spirit of revulsion over the evils of fascism. This asserts the right of human beings in ways that are now entrenched in the theory and (most of the time) the practice of liberal democracy. It upholds the right of people to live in freedom from persecution and arbitrary arrest; to hold any faith or none; to change religion; and to enjoy freedom of expression, which by any fair definition includes freedom to agree or disagree with the tenets of any religion.(resolution表面挺好but与revulsion over the evils of fascism相比显得insidious blurring,进一步说liberal democracy的优点:freedom)

In other words, it protects individuals—not religions, or any other set of beliefs. And this is a vital distinction. For it is not possible systematically to protect religions or their followers from offence without infringing the right of individuals. (过渡段:defamation of religious resolution和fascism revulsion之间的区别:前者强调religions,后者注重individuals)

What exactly is it the drafters of the council resolution are trying to outlaw? To judge from what happens in the countries that lobbied for the vote—like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan—they use the word “defamation” to mean something close to the crime of blasphemy, which is in turn defined as voicing dissent from the official reading of Islam. In many of the 56 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which has led the drive to outlaw “defamation”, both non-Muslims and Muslims who voice dissent (even in technical matters of Koranic interpretation) are often victims of just the sort of persecution the 1948 declaration sought to outlaw. That is a real human-rights problem. And in the spirit of fairness, laws against blasphemy that remain on the statute books of some Western countries should also be struck off; only real, not imaginary, incitement of violence should be outlawed.(本段讲到底禁止什么:close to the crime of blasphemy;victims of persecution说明应该要体现real incitement of voilence才应该被禁止)

Good manners, please; not censorship
In much of the Muslim world, the West’s reaction to the attacks of September 2001, including the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, has been misread as an attack on Islam itself. This is more than regrettable; it is dangerous. Western governments, and decent people everywhere, should try to ensure that the things they say do not entrench religious prejudice or incite acts of violence; being free to give offence does not mean you are wise to give offence. But no state, and certainly no body that calls itself a Human Rights Council, should trample on the right to free speech enshrined in the Universal Declaration. And in the end, given that all faiths have undergone persecution at some time, few people have more to gain from the protection of free speech than sincere religious believers.(本段misread, regrettable, dangerous体现了作者对the West's reaction的否定; 进一步用Human Rights Council, Universal Declaration质疑对free speech的践踏; 结论:当all faiths persecuted at the same time, sincere religious believers需要更多的free speech保护)

The United States, with its tradition of combining strong religious beliefs and religious freedom, is well placed to make that case(对此问题准确定位). Having taken a politically risky decision (see article) to re-engage with the Human Rights Council and seek election as one of its 47 members, America should now make the defence of real religious liberty one of its highest priorities.(最后有让步地呼吁:combination of strong religious beliefs and religious freedom is well placed. But re-engage with HRC is a politically risky decision. 结论: America应该保卫真正的宗教自由，而不是incite violence, express verbiage.)

6G归来，可以安心准备10T了，大家加油！