Menos mal que la presidenta Michelle Bachelet es atea. Gracias a gestiones de ella misma, y en mancomunión con la unanimidad de los legisladores ("la derecha y la izquierda unidas jamás serán vencidas"), se decretó un día de vagancia no en honor a un santo más o uno menos o alguna aparición de una virgen, nada de eso, sino que en honor al día de la reforma protestante.
Si un protestante (evangélico) necesita practicar algún rito religioso, es nuestro deber, primero, explicarle que dios no existe. Pero si porfía en su absurdo, déjenlo. ¿Decretar que todo un país haga lo mismo? Parece demasiado, más aún cuando tenemos serios problemas en Chile para poner en su lugar a los exaltados religiosos.
El siguiente es una traducción de Chile Liberal sobre un artículo en que The Economist analiza las consecuencias del feriado canuto.
Hola, Lutero
Ver original: Hola, Luther, y en el blog paralelo Latin American Liberals
Un feriado que marca un hito
Los países latinoamericanos han celebrado desde siempre una plétora de días feriados católico-romanos, desde Corpus Christi hasta San Pedro y San Pablo. Pero este año Chile ha sentado un precedente en la región al declarar que el 31 de octubre es un feriado nacional en honor a las "iglesias evangélicas y protestantes". La fecha conmemora el día de en que Martín Lutero, en 1517, clavó sus 95 Tesis en la puerta de una iglesia en Wittenberg, Alemania, lo que daría comienzo a la reforma protestante. Sólo Eslovenia y algunos estados alemanes lo celebran con un feriado nacional.Lo que convierte a este decisión en algo incluso más extraño es que Chile es el único país de América Latina donde aún existe un partido político que así mismo se denomina "cristiano" (católico), el Partido Demócrata Cristiano. No obstante, el nuevo feriado fue aprobado unánimemente en el Congreso Nacional. Al parecer, los políticos han encontrado una oportunidad para lucirse.
En el censo realizado el año 2002, en un país que hasta hace poco era recalcitrantemente católico, el 15% de los chilenos se consideró "evangélico" (sinónimo en América Latina de "protestante"). Actualmente las escuelas administradas por el estado ofrecen elegir entre educación religiosa católica o evangélica, y las fuerzas armadas tienen capellanes de ambas denominaciones.
Chile no es el único. Más del 15% de los brasileños y sobre el 20% de los guatemaltecos ahora son evangélicos. La mayoría de los protestantes latinoamericanos son pentecostales, que enfatizan la experiencia directa con Dios. Las iglesias pentecostales siguen multiplicándose en las áreas más pobres de Santiago, tal como ocurre en todo el continente. Un ex obispo católico y teólogo de la liberación fue elegido presidente de Paraguay este año. Pero la adopción del protestantismo por parte de los sectores más pobres y socialmente aspiracionales es una tendencia inexorable. Cinco siglos después que todo el continente fuese forzado a convertirse al catolicismo, este nuevo día feriado en Chile marca un hito cultural.
Aunque trae sus consecuencias. Chile puede tener una reputación de trabajólico y aburrido, pero cuenta con 16 feriados nacionales al año (más los famosos "días sándwich" a los que acostumbran los chilenos). La producción de un día laboral equivale a pérdidas de $735 millones de dólares. Para compensar las pérdidas, el gobierno planea sigilosamente eliminar un par de feriados dedicados a la Virgen.
10 comentarios:
Me acuerdo de un libro que leía de chico, de esos de la colección Barco de Vapor. Se llamaba "El Maestro y el Robot" y hablaba irónicamente sobre los sistemas educacionales orientados a producir trabajadores eficientes. Recuerdo perfecto que una de las unidades de medida eran los "tornillos dejados de fabricar".
La verdad es que, aunque tiene desventajas evidentes, a veces agradezco bastante vivir en un país latinoamericano (aunque se crea europeo), que se resiste culturalmente a la hipereficiencia media asfixiante de los países protestantes.
The irony about the term "evangelical" is that it originally referred to the followers of Martin Luther during the Protestant Reformation in Germany. Even today in Germany "evangelical" means Lutheran, to distinguish them from Catholics, who constitute the other major religion in that country. However, in the New World (North and South America) "evangelical" usually means fundamentalist, which the Lutheran Church is not, strictly speaking. So while in Germany I would be considered an "evangelical," here in Canada I would not.
Emilia
@Socióblogo: no veo problema con la hipereficiencia. Ser hipereficiencia nos ayudaría a ser buenas personas, a tener familias felices, a vivir mejor, porque así se es más eficiente.
@Emilia: good observation. I think the term protestant is less popular perhaps because it has a negative ring to it, at least in Spanish (sounds like 'the ones who protest'). I believe in English too, although I'm not sure if the term evangelical means the same in both languages. In Spanish sounds like saying 'people who follow the Gospels'.
Strictly speaking, I'm with the evangelical/protestants on that. It is a fact that the Roman Catholics base their beliefs in the Cathecism, and their rituals have no connection at all with the culture in which Jesus (if existed) was immersed and lived in.
The Economist have highlighted in the past this wave of conversion to protestantism, attracting even Catholics. Check out this article.
However, I don't see any difference between Alfonso Trujillo or a Ted Haggard, among many others.
As you know, and I don't mean to offend anyone, but I find religioun as downright evil. And it's the moderates who create a safety net for the fanatics.
Religion does have a place in individuals' private lives. But I don't see the point of celebrating in Chile the Protestant Reformation with a bank holiday. Even more so when it was promoted by the arch-atheist president Michelle Bachelet.
Actually, I meant to ask you: don't you find that nice and moderate religious people create the right conditions for the extremists to preach? Richard Dawkins sums up the point brilliantly:
'The problem is that religious moderates make the world safe for fundamentalists, by promoting faith as a virtue and by enforcing an overly pious respect for religion.'
The problem I have with the term "Protestant" is that it encompasses a wide range of religious groups, from Anglicans (some of whom, by the way, don't even consider themselves Protestant) to Pentecostals to Jehovah's Witnesses, who don't have much in common other than being non-Catholic/-Orthodox Christians.
Regarding a holiday for the Reformation, speaking as a Canadian I think there are already too many public holidays. I suppose I would stay with the existing holidays that even if they are religious in origin (Christmas, Easter, etc.) have basically become secular celebrations.
About religious moderates creating safe conditions for extremists, I suppose you could say that of any group. For instance, did feminists make it safe for the woman who shot Andy Warhol? Did moderate atheists make it safe for the Communist militants who forcibly closed down churches and sent Orthodox priests to Siberia? Or did Black civil rights leaders make it safe for people like Louis Farakhan ? I would answer "no" in all cases. Any philosophy can be taken to the extreme.
On the other hand... if you have grown up in a country where a church (in your case the Catholic Church) constantly interferes in the daily lives of the people and the laws of the state, I can't blame you for being sceptical of religion in general. Maybe I don't understand it because in Canada, 1.) there is no one church (most people are at least nominally Christian, but there are a wide range of denominations), and 2.) even in places like Quebec, the Catholic Church, which once held the population under an iron fist, has essentially been "defanged."
Just a question: do you think if the Catholic Church adopted the position of, say, the Anglican Church in England, where it didn't try to impose its morality on the people, would you be less hostile to it?
Emilia
Emilia, OK, you're right in saying that any belief can be taken to an extreme. However, religion is different because it's the only ideology which doesn't take questining, and if you question or even poke fun, you know the consequences. Let's remember piss Christ or the Virgin dung, let alone the Muhammed teddy bear or the cartoons. To give you an example, Popetown series was banned by the BBC a couple of years ago.
I can say that Chile's president is an ugly fat cow and some people may feel offended but thankfully now we don't have severe censorhip laws. People have expressed all sort of comments against George Bush, or the feminists, the Tories, communists, tree-huggers, you name it.
But the respect that religion commands is abused by extremists. It is different to any other belief or ideology.
The main point of the New Atheism is that we have to tolerate fanatic intolerants, like a Jehova's Witness causing the death of his child not allowing a blood transfusion, because we respect religions the same say we revere the nicely-nicely Anglican Church.
So to answer your question, no, I would not be as radical had I not been brought up in a country led by a devote Catholic dictator, where communists also took catholicism and invented the tehology of liberation. But I would find equally baffled by the paradox of moderates and extremists all in one group demanding respect.
The majority of people commenting here have rightly pointed out a contradiction between liberal values of respect to the individuals and freedom of religion, and downright hostility to people's beliefs.
The contradiction is apparent, but not real. I have said that I am a tolerant person, but enough is enough and I am not willing to tolerate people who don't tolerate me. In other words, tolerance is my default state of mind, but if I see someone refusing a blood transfusion to his children, or causing harm to others, I could not care less if god or the Flying Spaghetti Monster commanded that.
And to sum up my answer, if the Roman Catholic church softened up and behaved more like the Anglican (at least the homosexual-friendly section), I would still demand they show me the evidence of their belief. I'm not as crazy as to say I would bitterly despise them, but look at the English: they started out accepting the Anglican Church, then they had to put up with bombers in the tube, and finally ended up with the Archbishop of Canterbury arguing for Sharia law in the UK. Simply ludicrous.
I would not be as vociferous, but I would be no friend of a 'nice' and moderate Catholic church.
you bloody dogmatic
you bastard
religion is life
atheism is stupidity and nonsense
it's just so simple
pilar zordo
dude, what's with being agressive like that? if you're so convinced of the existence of God and the benefits of religion, what's it to you if someone differs? could it be they're convincing you and you're fighting with yourself?
besides, I doubt any religion would be happy to count amongst their people someone who insults and puts down others the way you do...
btw the name's "Sordo"...
Hello, it's Emilia again.
Your link to the proposal for establishing sharia in England was interesting. Here in Ontario (the province where I live) there was a move to bring in sharia for Muslims here. Fortunately it did not pass. Interestingly, some of the most vociferous opponents of the proposal were Muslims themselves. It may be that some of them had come to Canada as immigrants seeking a more secular country than the ones they had left behind.
That brings me to a point: the importance of secularism. In my view, no belief system should be part of a state. The example of the Catholic Church with the Inquisition, the militant atheism of the former Soviet Union, and the Taliban in Afghanistan show what can happen if a government officially embraces a religion (or aggressive irreligion).
Even with the "nicer" state churches like the Anglican Church in England or the Lutheran Church in Norway, I'm still uncomfortable with the idea of any belief system, no matter how benign, being part of the government apparatus. But since I don't live in England or Norway, I suppose I'll have to let the English and Norwegians figure that one out!
@Emilia: as we discussed once some time ago, the former Soviet Union was established in a country rooted in religion and the communists simply switched from the Orthodox beliefs into a secular religion. The worshipping of comunist symbols, the pilgrimage to Lenin's tomb, etc, it amounts to a religion in itself. The same in Cuba, where Che Guevara is worshipped as a saint. This is explained much better by Chrisopher Hitchens, particularly the case of North Korea, which nowadays is the most notorious 'atheist' dictatorship - see minute 4 in this conference. On the other hand, Sam Harris nails it when he says that fascism and communism are 'too much like religon', cause they're also 'dogmatic systems of belief' - check out this clip.
Atheism is not dogmatism. I have no reasons to believe in any god unless I'm explained what the proofs or pieces of evidence are. Until the religious present an extraordinary proof to back their extraordinary claims, I declare myself atheist. So I am not dogmatic.
However, you're spot on saying 'no belief system should be part of a state'. The state, being by its own nature an ilegitimate institution, if tolerated needs to keep away from imposing beliefs, no matter if such beliefs come from the majority of the public or if they are incredibly benevolent. People are free to believe in whatever they wish. Someone can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster if they wish to do so, it's OK but provided that they don't bother other people. It is not the state's business to accept or reject any system of belief.
Secularism doesn't necessarily mean atheism. I understand that the head of government or of state of a country is entitled to have views on the afterlife etc. But there's no place for that in public life or politics.
But then again, you see my point here when I propose atheism. If an all-powerful entity has told me the Truth, and I am say the PM of Canda, I wonder if I can resist from enlightening everyone with the Holy Eternal Truth that God has revealed to me just because there's such thing as a secular society. My point is that a believer is simply not qualified to hold any representative job because as the recepient of eternal truths, he or she would feel compelled to promote a religious agenda.
The case of Sarah Palin was clear. If she really believes in rapture and Armageddon, wouldn't she like to nuke the world to prompt an early coming of Jesus? If she is a true believer, she would. So I'm glad she's back now taking the kids to the hockey games and not with power over the armed forces.
So just like yourself I'm uncomfortable with the idea of any belief system, no matter how benign, being part of the government apparatus, but I'm taking it even further and I am not going to vote, never ever, for anyone who even mutters 'god bless you' at the end of a speech.
In that regard, I aim at a staunchingly secular society like France and their laïcité. If a French politician ever says 'god', it would be a national scandal.
Perhaps the British, the Norwegians, even the Canadians (to a certain extent the Americans) can handle it because protestantism has less centralised power. In a Catholic country, we have to be ruthless.
I'm not only worried about institutions being secular in a secular state, I'm also worried about the people running such institutions, let alone the people voting for their representatives. At least in the US, there's no way people would vote for an atheist. Amazingly, Chile has voted twice in a row for openly agnostic presidents, being Michelle Bachelet the most atheist ever to hold office.
By meaning I think that no belief system should be part of the state, I don't necessarily mind that a political leader holds a particular religious viewpoint (even if I don't share it) or even that he or she says "God bless you" at the end of a speech. However, I do mind if leaders try to impose their personal and/or religious beliefs on their subjects. But a great many have no intention of doing so. For example, a number of Catholic leaders have said that while they personally oppose abortion, they would not try to ban the procedure legally.
On the other hand, I can see where you are coming from when you state that in Catholic countries you have to be more "ruthless" in separating the church from the state. In Italy right now there is a case going on regarding a girl who has been in a persisent vegetative state for 16 years (kind of like Teresa Schiavo in the United States). Her father wants her to be taken off life support because before she entered that state (due to a car accident) she told him that she would never want to be kept alive artificially. Now apparently the Catholic Church in Italy is fighting the decision even though a court of law has ruled the girl's life support can be disconnected. On the other hand, in England there is a case of a woman who had leukemia and has refused a heart transplant because she doesn't want to go through debilitating medical treatments (she's had enough of them, she has said) and wants to spend her time left with her family. As far as I know the Anglican Church there hasn't tried to intervene and order that she undergo the transplant.
Of course not all members of the Catholic hierarchy agree with official Church dogma. For instance, one Italian nun has publicly stated that she would never want to be kept alive artificially. But with a central authority like a Pope it's harder for them to defy the official Church without being censured.
Emilia
Publicar un comentario