ﺍﺩﻋﺎﯼ ﺍﯾﻨﮑﻪ ﺍﺭﺯﺷﻬﺎﯼ ﺍﺻﻠﯽ ﺍﺧﻼﻗﯽ ﺭﺍ ﺧﺪﺍ ﻭﺿﻊ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ

ﻧﯿﺰ ﺧﯿﻠﯽ ﻣﺸﮑﻮﮎ ﺍﺳﺖ.
 
برگرفته شده از صفحه: کانون اگنوستیک ها و آتئیست های ایران
پیمان پایدار 
*************************
ﻗﻮﺍﻧﯿﻦ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺻﻄﻼﺡ ﻣﻘﺪﺱ، ﺑﺎﺯﺗﺎﺏ ﺷﺮﺍﯾﻂ ﺗﺎﺭﯾﺨﯽ ﻭ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﯽ ﺟﻮﺍﻣﻌﯽ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﻭﺍﺿﻊ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﯿﻦ ﺑﻮﺩﻩﺍﻧﺪ.
ﻣﺜﻼً ﻋﻬﺪﻋﺘﯿﻖ ﻣﯽﮔﻮﯾﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺎﯾﺪ ﺯﻧﺎﮐﺎﺭﺍﻥ، ﮐﻔﺮﮔﻮﯾﺎﻥ، ﻓﺮﺯﻧﺪﺍﻥ ﺳﺮﮐﺶ، ﺣﺮﺍﻣﺰﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎ، ﺟﺎﺩﻭﮔﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﻫﻤﺠﻨﺲ ﮔﺮﺍﯾﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺳﻨﮕﺴﺎﺭ ﮐﺮﺩ؛ ﭼﻮﻥ ﻋﻔﺖ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﯽ ﺭﺍ ﺟﺮﯾﺤﻪ ﺩﺍﺭ ﻣﯽﮐﻨﻨﺪ. ﺍﯾﻦ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﯿﻦ ﺣﺎﻣﯽ ﻣﺮﺩﺳﺎﻻﺭﯼ ﻭ ﺳﻠﻄﻪﯼ ﻣﺮﺩﺍﻥ ﺑﺮ ﺯﻧﺎﻥ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ. ﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﯿﻦِ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺻﻄﻼﺡ الهی، ﻣﺠﺎﺯﺍﺗﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺑﺮﺩﻩﺩﺍﺭﯼ ﻭ ﻗﺘﻞ ﻋﺎﻡ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻧﺸﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ. 

ﺩﺭ ﻋﻬﺪﺟﺪﯾﺪ ﻫﻢ ﻣﯽ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﯿﻢ: "ﺍﻣﻮﺭ ﺳﺰﺍﺭ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺰﺍﺭ ﻭﺍﮔﺬﺍﺭ." ﺍﻧﺠﯿﻞ ﺍﺯ ﺯﻧﺎﻥ ﻣﯽﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﮐﻪ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﺒﺮﺩﺍﺭ ﺷﻮﻫﺮﺍﻥ ﺷﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ؛ ﺩﺭﻣﺎﻥ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﻭﺭﺩﺧﻮﺍﻧﯽ، ﺟﻦﮔﯿﺮﯼ، ﻭ ﻣﻌﺠﺰﻩ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﻣﯽﺩﺍﻧﺪ؛ ﺗﻌﺒﺪ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﻼﻝ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻤﺎﺭﺩ؛ ﺗﺮﺱ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺷﻬﺎﻣﺖ ﻭ ﺗﻘﻮﯼ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺗﮑﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻣﯽ ﺩﺍﻧﺪ. 

ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﺗﺤﻤﻞ عقاﯾﺪ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻒ، ﺁﺯﺍﺩﯼ ﻋﻘﯿﺪﻩ ﻭ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﻏﯿﺮ ﻣﺆﻣﻨﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ؛ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺯﻧﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻔﯽ ﻣﯽﮐﻨﺪ؛ ﺟﻬﺎﺩ، ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﺟﻨﮓ ﻣﻘﺪﺱ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ ﮐﺎﻓﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻭﺍﺟﺐ ﻣﯽﺷﻤﺎﺭﺩ؛ ﻭ ﭘﯿﺮﻭﯼ ﻣﺤﺾ ﺍﺯ ﮐﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺭﺍ ﮐﻪ ﻣﯽ ﮔﻮﯾﺪ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻭﺣﯽ ﺷﺪﻩ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﯽﺩﻫﺪ. ﺟﺪﺍﯾﯽ ﻣﺴﺠﺪ ﺍﺯ ﺣﮑﻮﻣﺖ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻤﯽﭘﺬﯾﺮﺩ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺗﺮﺗﯿﺐ قاﻧﻮﻥ ﺷﺮﯾﻌﺖ ﻭ ﺩﯾﻦ ﺳﺎﻻﺭﯼ ﺍﻣﺎﻡﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻣﻼﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺍﻣﻀﺎ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ.

ﺧﺪﺍﯼ ﭘﺪﺭ ﺳﺎﻻﺭ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﯿﻦ ﺍﺧﻼﻗﯽ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻗﻀﯽ ﻭﺿﻊ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ. ﺧﺪﺍﺑﺎﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﺑﺮ ﺳﺮ ﺍﯾﻨﮑﻪ ﺩﺳﺘﻮﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﺧﻼﻗﯽ ﺩﺭﺳﺖ ﮐﺪﺍﻡﺍﻧﺪ، ﺑﺎ ﻫﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺟﺪﺍﻝ ﺑﻮﺩﻩﺍﻧﺪ. ﻣﻮﻣﻨﺎﻥ ﻫﻢ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺟﻨﮓ ﺑﻮﺩﻩﺍﻧﺪ ﻭ ﻫﻢ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻒ ﺁﻥ؛ ﻫﻢ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﺮﺩﻩﺩﺍﺭﯼ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ ﻭ ﻫﻢ ﻣﺨﺎلفان. ﻫﻢ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺣﮑﻢ ﺍﻋﺪﺍﻡ ﺑﻮﺩﻩﺍﻧﺪ ﻭ ﻫﻢ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻒ ﺁﻥ. ﺑﺮﺧﯽ ﻣﺆﻣﻨﺎﻥ ﻗﺼﺎﺹ ﺭﺍ ﻣﯽﭘﺴﻨﺪﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺧﯽ ﻋﻔﻮ ﯾﺎ ﺩﯾﻪ ﺭﺍ. ﺑﻌﻀﯽ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺣﻖ ﺍﻟﻬﯽ ﺷﺎهاﻥ ﺑﺮ ﺣﮑﻮﻣﺖ، ﺑﺮﺩﻩﺩﺍﺭﯼ ﻭ ﭘﺪﺭ ﺳﺎﻻﺭﯼ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺑﻌﻀﯽ ﻫﻢ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻒ ﺍﯾﻨﻬﺎ. ﺑﻌﻀﯽ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺭﻫﺎﯾﺶ ﺯﻧﺎﻥ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ ﺑﻌﻀﯽ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻒ ﺁﻥ؛ﻋﺪﻩﺍﯼ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻣﻤﻨﻮﻋﯿﺖ ﻣﻄﻠﻖ ﭘﯿﺸﮕﯿﺮﯼ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺎﺭﺩﺍﺭﯼ، به مرﮔﯽ (ﮐﺸﺘﻦ ﺑﯿﻤﺎﺭ ﻣﺒﺘﻼ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻣﺮﺍﺽ ﻻﻋﻼﺝ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺭﺧﻮﺍﺳﺖ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﯿﻤﺎﺭ)، ﻭ ﺳﻘﻂ ﺟﻨﯿﻦ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ ﻭ ﮔﺮﻭﻫﯽ ﻫﻢ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻒ ﺁﻥ؛ ﺩﺳﺘﻪﺍﯼ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺆﻣﻨﺎﻥ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮﯼ ﺟﻨﺴﯽ ﺑﻮﺩﻩﺍﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺩﺳﺘﻪﺍﯼ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻒ ﺁﻥ؛ ﺑﺮﺧﯽ ﺣﺎﻣﯽ ﺁﺯﺍﺩﯼ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻋﻠﻤﯽ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺧﯽ ﻫﻢ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻒ ﺁﻥ. ﺑﻌﻀﯽ ﻣﺆﻣﻨﺎﻥ ﺣﺎﻣﯽ ﺍﯾﺪﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻟﯿﺒﺮﺍﻝ ﻭ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﯼ ﺁﺯﺍﺩ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺑﻌﻀﯽ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻒ ﺁﻥ. ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﻣﻮﻣﻨﺎﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﻼﻝ ﻓﺮﺩﯼ، ﺁﺯﺍﺩﯼ ﻓﺮﺩﯼ ﻭ ﺍﺗﮑﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﺭﺯﺷﯽ ﻗﺎﺋﻞ ﻧﺒﻮﺩﻩﺍﻧﺪ. ﺩﺳﺘﻮﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﺧﺪﺍ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺍﺗﮑﺎﯾﯽ ﺷﻤﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ؛ ﺍﯾﻤﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺗﺮ ﺍﺯِ خرﺩ ﻭ ﺯﻭﺩﺑﺎﻭﺭﯼ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺷﮏ ﺩﺍﻧﺴﺘﻪ ﺍﻧﺪ. ﺩﺭ ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﺍﻭﻗﺎﺕ، ﻣﺆﻣﻨﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺎﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺣﻞ ﻣﺸﮑﻼﺕ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻦ ﻓﺮﺩﺍﯾﯽ ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﺑﺮ ﺍﺳﺎﺱ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺎﯾﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺑﺸﺮﯼ ﻣﯽﺩﺍﻧﻨﺪ. ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﻣﺆﻣﻨﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻡ ﺭﻭﯾﺎﺭﻭﯾﯽ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺼﯿﺒﺖﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺟﺎﯼ ﺩﻟﯿﺮﯼ ﮐﺮﺩﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻏﻠﺒﻪ ﺑﺮ ﻓﺎﺟﻌﻪ ﻭ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻦ ﺁﯾﻨﺪﻩ ﺑﻬﺘﺮ، ﺑﻪ ﺩﺭﮔﺎﻩ ﺧﺪﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺱ ﻭ ﺩﻋﺎ می کنند. 

فرد ﺷﮑﺎﮎ نتیجه می گیرد: " ﻫﯿﭻ ﺧﺪﺍﯾﯽ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺍد ﻣﺎ ﻧﻤﯽﺭﺳﺪ. ﺍﮔﺮ ﻣﯽ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﯿﻢ ﻧﺠﺎﺕ ﭘﯿﺪﺍﮐﻨﯿﻢ،ﺑﺎﯾﺪ ﺧﻮﺩﻣﺎﻥ ﺁﺳﺘﯿﻦ ﺑﺎﻻ ﺑﺰﻧﯿﻢ."

ﻣﺬﺍﻫﺐ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﻧﻪ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﺸﻐﻮﻝ ﻧﺒﺮﺩ ﺑﺎ ﺩﯾﮕﺮ ﺍﺩﯾﺎﻥ ﯾﺎ ﺍﯾﺪﺋﻮﻟﻮﮊﯼ ﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﺑﻮﺩﻩﺍﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﯿﺖ ﺍﻟﻬﯽ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺭﺍ نمی ﭙﺬﯾﺮﻓﺘﻨﺪ، ﺑﻠﮑﻪ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ ﻓﺮﻗﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﯾﮕﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﺩﯾﻦ ﺧﻮﺩﺷﺎﻥ ﻧﯿﺰ می ﺠﻨﮕﯿﺪﻧﺪ. ﻣﺜﻼً ﺟﻨﮓ ﮐﺎﺗﻮﻟﯿکﻫﺎ ﻭ ﭘﺮﻭﺗﺴﺘﺎﻥﻫﺎ، ﺟﻨﮓ ﺷﯿﻌﻪ ﻭ ﺳﻨﯽ.
ﺍﺩﯾﺎﻥ ﻣﺪﻋﯽ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺧﺪﺍ ﺳﺨﻦ ﻣﯽﮔﻮﯾﻨﺪ. ﺑﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺗﺮﺗﯿﺐ، ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺗﺎﺭﯾﺦ ﺧﻮﻧﺮﯾﺰﯼ ﻫﺎ، ﻇﻠﻢﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻭﺣﺸﺖ ﺍﻓﮑﻨﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻧﯽ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺎﻡ ﺧﺪﺍ ﻭ ﻣﻘﺪﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﻧﺪ. ﻣﻮﻣﻨﺎﻥ ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﺟﻠﻮﯼ ﭘﯿﺸﺮﻓﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺑﺸﺮﯼ ﺭﺍ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪﺍﻧﺪ: ﻟﻐﻮ ﺑﺮﺩﮔﯽ، ﺁﺯﺍﺩﯼ ﺯﻧﺎﻥ، ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮﯼ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﯽ، ﻭ ﺍﻋﻄﺎﯼ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺩﮔﺮﺑﺎﺷﺎﻥ ﺟﻨﺴﯽ، ﺑﺴﻂ ﺩﻣﻮﮐﺮﺍﺳﯽ ﻭ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺑﺸﺮ، ﻫﻤﮕﯽ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺎﻧﻊ ﺩﯾﻦ ﺑﺮﺧﻮﺭﺩ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ.
ﻣﻦ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺩﺍﺭﻡ ﮐﻪ ﺩﯾﻨﺪﺍﺭﺍﻥ ﻟﯿﺒﺮﺍﻝ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﺎً ﻋﻘﺎﯾﺪ ﺟﺰﻣﯽ ﺑﻨﯿﺎﺩ ﮔﺮﺍﯾﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻤﯽﭘﺬﯾﺮﻧﺪ. ﺧﻮﺷﺒﺨﺘﺎﻧﻪ ﺁﻧﺎﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺛﺮﺍﺕ ﺩﻣﻮﮐﺮﺍﺳﯽ ﻣﺪﺭﻥ ﻭ ﺍﺭﺯﺷﻬﺎﯼ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻧﯽ ﺑﻬﺮﻩ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪﺍﻧﺪ، ﮐﻪ ﺗﻌﺼﺐ ﺫﺍﺗﯽ ﺑﻨﯿﺎﺩﮔﺮﺍﯾﯽ ﺭﺍ ﺗﺨﻔﯿﻒ ﻣﯽ ﺑﺨﺸﺪ. ﺑﺎ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺑﺨﺶ ﮐﻠﯿﺪﯼ ﺍﯾﻤﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺩﯾﺎﻥ ﺍﺑﺮﺍﻫﯿمی (یهوﺩﯾﺖ، ﻣﺴﯿﺤﯿﺖ، ﺍﺳﻼﻡ) ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﺍﻧﮕﺎﺭﻩﯼ ﺭﺳﺘﮕﺎﺭﯼ ﺍﺑﺪﯼ ﺭﺍ ﻣﯽ ﭘﺬﯾﺮﻧﺪ.
- پل کورتز -
برگردان: محمد ام بی
The claim that our ultimate moral values are derived from God is likewise highly suspect. The so-called sacred moral codes reflect the socio-historical cultures out of which they emerged. For example, the Old Testament commands that adulterers, blasphemers, disobedient sons, bastards, witches, and homosexuals be stoned to death. It threatens collective guilt: punishment is inflicted by Jehovah on the children’s children of unbelievers. It defends patriarchy and the dominion of men over women. It condones slavery and genocide in the name of God. The New Testament consigns “unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”; it demands that women be obedient to their husbands; it accepts faith healing, exorcisms, and miracles; it exalts obedience over independence, fear and trembling over courage, and piety over self-determination. The Qur’an does not tolerate dissent, freedom of conscience, or the right to unbelief. It denies the rights of women. It exhorts jihad, holy war against infidels. It demands utter submission to the Word of God as revealed by Muhammad. It rejects the separation of mosque and state, thus installing the law of sharia and the theocracy of imams and mullahs. From the fatherhood of God, contradictory moral commandments have been derived; theists have often lined up on opposite sides of moral issues. Believers have stood for and against war; for and against slavery; for and against capital punishment, some embracing retribution, others mercy and rehabilitation; for and against the divine right of kings, slavery, and patriarchy; for and against the emancipation of women; for and against the absolute prohibition of contraception, euthanasia, and abortion; for and against sexual and gender equality; for and against freedom of scientific research; for and against the libertarian ideals of a free society. True believers have in the past often found little room for human autonomy, individual freedom, or self-reliance. They have emphasized submission to the word of God instead of self- determination, faith over reason, credulity over doubt. All too often they have had little confidence in the ability of humans to solve problems and create a better future by drawing on their own resources. In the face of tragedy, they supplicate to God through prayer instead of summoning the courage to overcome adversity and build a better future. The skeptic concludes, “No deity will save us; if we are to be saved it must be by our own efforts.” The traditional religions have too often waged wars of intolerance not only against other religions or ideologies that dispute the legitimacy of their divine revelations but even against sects that are mere variants of the same religion (e.g., Catholic versus Protestant, Shiite versus Sunni). Religions claim to speak in the name of God, yet bloodshed, tyranny, and untold horrors have often been justified on behalf of holy creeds. True believers have all too often opposed human progress: the abolition of slavery, the liberation of women, the extension of equal rights to transgendered people and gays, the expansion of democracy and human rights. I realize that liberal religionists generally have rejected the absolutist creeds of fundamentalism. Fortunately, they have been influenced by modern democratic and humanistic values, which mitigate fundamentalism’s inherent intolerance. Nevertheless, even many liberal believers embrace a key article of faith in the three major Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism: the promise of eternal salvation.
- Paul Kurtz -