生長の家とは何だったのか？

Is it time to open the door to better relations with Iran?

Is it time to open the door to better relations with Iran?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/time-open-door-better-relations-iran/

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well before President George W. Bush labeled it part of the axis of evil, Iran was viewed as a leading enemy of the U.S.

For more than three decades, they have had no diplomatic relations. But with serious negotiations now under way about curbing Iran’s nuclear program and the rise of a newer, common threat, the Islamic State, some foreign policy thinkers are arguing it’s time for a thaw.

In the latest of our series of collaborations with The Atlantic magazine, we take a look at their arguments on both sides of rethinking U.S. relations with Iran — tonight, the first of two reports.

There was the expected royal welcome awaiting the president at the airport in Tehran.

Four decades have passed since I was a White House correspondent for NBC News covering what would turn out to be the last official visit by a U.S. head of state to Iran.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: Iran is an island of stability in one of the most troubled areas of the world.

JUDY WOODRUFF: In just a little over a year, the shah would be overthrown and forced into exile, the U.S. Embassy stormed, and 66 Americans held hostage for 144 days.

Ever since, the status quo has been enmity between Iran and the West. Some experts, like historian Robert Kaplan, believe it is it time to open the door to Iran.

ROBERT KAPLAN, The Atlantic: Foreign policy is about necessity, not desires.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But you’re talking about a country that has considered America the great Satan.

ROBERT KAPLAN: I’m not talking about peace. I’m talking about detente. And detente is what you do with enemies, not with friends.

HOSSEIN MOUSAVIAN, Former Spokesperson, Iranian Nuclear Negotiation Team: Americans and Iranians both, since 1979, they have used all their capacity to confront each other, no doubt about it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Hossein Mousavian, former spokesperson for Iran’s nuclear negotiation team, is used to representing Iran in the West.

HOSSEIN MOUSAVIAN: From the Iranian point of view, the reason they really cannot trust the U.S. is when the U.S. backed dictators in Iran, second, when the U.S. supported the Saddam invasion of Iran, a war which aimed at dismantling Iran.

We have a history of mistrust, misunderstanding, miscalculations. There is a more important fact. The common interests between Iran and the U.S. is huge.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer is a powerful opponent of the idea of any softening of the West’s position on Iran.

How does Israel view the U.S.-Iran relationship?

RON DERMER, Ambassador, Israel: Well, even in the Middle East, Judy, you need two to tango. Iran is not interested in any rapprochement with the United States. They are not changing their behavior in the region at all. They are saying that they are not going to change their behavior in the region.

Iran is the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world.

RICHARD HAASS, Council on Foreign Relations: Iran is an imperial power. Iran has a vision of its role in the Middle East, as the dominant influence.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Richard Haass, the head of the Council on Foreign Relations, shares the skepticism.

RICHARD HAASS: Look at the differences the United States and Iran have in virtually every other aspect in the Middle East, about Israel and the Palestinians, about Syria, about Iraq.

RON DERMER: The reason why you have a problem in Syria is because of Iran, because of Iran’s support for Assad. Why is Lebanon not free today?  Because of Iran through its proxy, Hezbollah. Iran is responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But Robert Kaplan sees the outlines of a different relationship emerging, where former enemies, the U.S. and Iran, now have common interests.

ROBERT KAPLAN: The rise of the Islamic State has given new urgency to the situation, because the Islamic State is an enemy of the United States, but is also the enemy of Shia Iran, so that we have a convergence of interests now.

HOSSEIN MOUSAVIAN: Iranians and Americans are the leading regional international force fighting ISIS. Americans are leading the airstrike, and Iranians are leading the ground strike.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Mousavian believes Iran could also be helpful in Afghanistan, and he says it wouldn’t be the first time.

HOSSEIN MOUSAVIAN: You can see the same history during war on terror 2001 in Afghanistan. Iranian army security establishments, they were cooperating shoulder by shoulder with the Americans to fight al-Qaida and Taliban.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But critics argue that any kind of rapprochement with Shia Iran would play into Islam’s 14-century-old rivalry, which pits majority Sunni countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia against Shia Iran.

RON DERMER: These two groups both hate the United States.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Ambassador Ron Dermer sees a chance to play Sunni against Shia.

RON DERMER: So, when your enemies are fighting each other, you don’t take a side. You don’t strengthen one of them. You try to weaken them both.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The toppling of Saddam Hussein was something both the U.S. and Iran supported. Mousavian says the two countries are better off if they also clean up the current crises together.

HOSSEIN MOUSAVIAN: Directly or indirectly, Iran and the U.S., they cooperated to remove Saddam. It was enemy of Iran. It was enemy of the U.S. Today, definitely, they have common interests for the peace, security, and stability in Iraq.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But in another country, Syria, Iran is supporting the Assad regime, a brutal dictator.

HOSSEIN MOUSAVIAN: See, Judy, don’t get me wrong. I didn’t want to say, on every issue in the Middle East, we have the same views. I’m saying we have our differences, like Israeli issue, Palestinian issue, Syrian issue.

ROBERT KAPLAN: To get Assad out or to weaken him or to move him aside cannot be done without some sort of acquiescence with Iran, because, if we just kill him, the result may be like when we dismantled the regime in Iraq.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Some would argue that that’s already happened, I mean, that Syria’s already in chaos.

ROBERT KAPLAN: I would argue this, that there are different levels of chaos, that you could go from a Balkan level of atrocity to a Rwandan level of atrocity. Don’t say that things cannot get much worse, because they can.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Responsibility for the brutal attacks in Paris just two weeks ago has been claimed by the AQAP, the Arabian Peninsula branch of al-Qaida operating from Yemen. Kaplan sees Iran as a potential asset here, too.

ROBERT KAPLAN: Iranian rebels in Yemen are the only ones, it appears, with the capability on the ground of taking on al-Qaida.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Just last week, the same Iranian-backed Houthi rebels took control of Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, the seat of the country’s government.

Do you think a detente of a sort with Iran would mean less U.S. military engagement?

ROBERT KAPLAN: The goal is, is for you to do less of the fighting and get your allies in the region or even your former enemies in the region to do more of the fighting or more of the balancing for you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Despite this talk of a possible thaw, critics remain wary of Iran, at best.

RICHARD HAASS: The gap between where we are and what you’re describing as a kind of a strategic rapprochement is large. It’s closer to a chasm. Should we try to bridge it?  Sure, but we shouldn’t kid ourselves that it’s in any way close.

RON DERMER: Iran controls four Arab capitals. They control — effectively control Iraq, large parts of Iraq. They control Syria through Assad. They control Lebanon through Hezbollah. They control Gaza in their support of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and they’re now going to control Yemen, and they’re doing all of this without a nuclear weapon.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Tomorrow night, we will focus on the nuclear talks in part two of our collaboration on Iran with The Atlantic magazine.

'American Sniper': Patriotism under attack

'American Sniper': Patriotism Under Attack

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: And tonight, for the hour, we will be examining the hottest movie in the country and how some Hollywood liberals are trying to take down a hero. A "Hannity" special, "American Sniper: Patriotism Under Fire," is next.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "AMERICAN SNIPER")

BRADLEY COOPER AS "CHRIS KYLE": I got a military-age male that's on a cell phone watching the convoy, over.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you think he's reporting troop movement, you have a green light. Your call, over.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY (voice-over): It is the blockbuster movie that everybody's talking about!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: "American Sniper" was amazing. Phenomenal.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't usually watch movies like that, but I loved it. It was really good. And the ending was perfect!

HANNITY: The Oscar-nominated film has pulled in over $105 million in just its first week.

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, CO-HOST, "THE FIVE": "American Sniper" shattering box office records...

HANNITY: But some Hollywood liberals are hell-bent on disrespecting the most lethal sniper in U.S. military history!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can't believe Michael did that.

WHOOPIE GOLDBERG, CO-HOST, "THE VIEW"/ABC: We stood behind you, Seth, when you did your movie. Give them the same respect!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Michael Moore, he needs to get a life.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "AMERICAN SNIPER")

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All these guys, they know your name. They feel invincible with you up there. They're not.

HANNITY: Tonight, you'll hear from Chris Kyle's father, widow, and their emotional interviews you'll only see here on "Hannity."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WAYNE KYLE, CHRIS' DAD: He volunteered. He wanted to do this. And I knew he was doing something that he loved to do.

TAYA KYLE, CHRIS' WIFE: Chris was really good about, little bit by little bit, telling you more and more about his service and what he did.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "AMERICAN SNIPER")

COOPER: I'm ready.

SIENNA MILLER AS "TAYA KYLE": Baby?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm ready to come home.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: A "Hannity" special, "American Sniper: Patriotism Under Attack." It starts right here, right now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HANNITY: Now, the numbers prove it. Audiences in America -- they love "American Sniper." But reaction from members of the media -- well, that's mixed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

ED SHULTZ, HOST, "THE ED SHOW"/MSNBC: I was disturbed by the movie. I sat there in the movie theater with my wife over the weekend and thought this just underscores how many lives we have ruined because of doing something that was terribly wrong.

GOLDBERG: We stood behind you, Seth, when you did your movie, and we said you had the right to make the movie you wanted to make.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

GOLDBERG: Give them the same respect. 

If you've never been to war, it's a lot (ph) that you can call people a name, you can call all kinds of names. But until the bombs are exploding around you and the people are dying around you, you need to be a little more sensitive, dudes.  I get that you're creative types, but so are they. So back up!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE, "THE ED SHOW"/MSNBC: What I saw on that screen was a film that tore my guts apart because of the way it depicted the Iraqi people.

NICK IRVING, SNIPER, "FOX & FRIENDS": A lot of good guys and a lot of my friends died to -- you know, for his right to -- I guess freedom of speech.

CADE COURTLEY, FORMER NAVY SEAL, CNN: For somebody who has spent their entire career on freedom of speech and freedom of expression to be criticizing an individual like Chris Kyle, who exemplifies these very best -- well, it's like -- that's really biting the hand that feeds you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE, "THE ED SHOW"/MSNBC: It was a movie about an American SEAL who risked his life overseas four times.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HANNITY: Here now with reaction, two of Chris Kyle's friends, retired U.S. Army Ranger Sean Parnell and retired U.S. Navy SEAL Jason Redman.  Guys, good to see you.

Jason, from what I've heard, you have come under fire for defending Chris, defending the movie and defending how -- you know, the that job snipers do. What happened?

JASON REDMAN, FORMER NAVY SEAL: Well, Sean, absolutely. I mean, any time you take a stance on anything controversial, you're always going to have people that come after you, which is fine with me. You know, I actually find it pretty humorous with some of the statements that people make, everything from -- I was getting texts, What would Jesus do, you know, Thou shalt not kill, to my personal favorite, the atheist that wrote on there, To all Muslims, it's the Christians you want, not us, I'm an atheist.

You know, things like that are just -- they're almost entertaining because the reality is I fought for freedom, Chris fought for freedom, Sean fought for freedom. Every American veteran out there fought for the freedom for people to say whatever they want to say.

But here's the deal, it's not freedom from opinion and it's not freedom from people who are going to stand up and disagree with what you said. Both Michael Moore and Seth Rogen made inflammatory comments that disrespected the service of a great American, a great sniper, a great father, everything that Chris ever did. And in turn, it directly reflected upon the American military. And that's why I'm so adamant about stepping up and saying, Hey, you can say what you want, but I'm going to be there to counteract it.

HANNITY: No, I think it's important because you also knew Chris. And Sean, you knew Chris. The first thing that comes to my mind is they're ignorant. They're unappreciative. You know, you guys give them the right to say whatever they want. Freedom's defended by guys like Chris and guys like you guys. I think I'd be angrier if I did four tours like Chris did, Sean.

SEAN PARNELL, FORMER U.S. ARMY RANGER: Yes, no, it's -- look, there's a bright side to this coin, and that's the fact that, you know, "American Sniper" in the first four days raised -- you know, $105 million at the box office. So you know, Seth Rogen, Michael Moore, Rolling Stone, America doesn't give a damn about what you think.

And most of the time, you know, these people miss their mark with their criticisms of the movie. You know, "American Sniper" is not a political commentary on the Iraq war. "American Sniper" is not an exploratory view of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It is not an explanation or an in-depth study of atrocities that Americans committed.  It is an introspective look at the effects of war on an American hero and on a warrior and on their family.

"American Sniper" is not a pro-war film, it's a pro-warrior film. And every time the, you know, journalists or some of these coddled Hollywood types come out and criticize the film or criticize Chris or the warrior's journey home, it just makes it more difficult for guys that have served in combat to actually come home and live a normal life because it makes it more difficult for them to talk about their experience without being criticized for it.

And you know, look, here's the bottom line. .4 percent of this nation has served this country during 13 years of war. The gap between warrior and citizen in this country has never been greater. And so every time that these Hollywood liberals or journalists make comments that criticize our warriors on the battlefield, it drives that -- it makes that gap even further apart and it becomes very hard to reconcile here when you come home.

HANNITY: Yes, I think I'd be pretty angry as a warrior that put my life on the line for as long as he did or as long as you guys did, only to get this treatment when you get back.

Now, you were both friends with Chris. I ask you, Jason, did he ever talk about these experiences? I mean, is this what he described to you, that he -- you know, the decisions that he had to make?

REDMAN: You know, I think all warriors sit around and talk about things that happened on the battlefield. I mean, I don't think I ever sat around with the guys and said, Wow, I -- you know, I wish we had done this or I wish we had done that. You know, many times, you'll second guess how an operation unfolds.

But you know, we follow the law of armed conflict. We follow the rules of the Geneva convention. You know, the American military follows the most strict guidelines related to war to probably almost any nation out there. So when we go in and we do something, we do it the utmost of our ability.

HANNITY: Yes.

REDMAN: Chris did that so that we could make sure we were making our right decisions on the battlefield and come home and say, Hey, I did what was right to take care of my men and preserve the freedom of the American people.

HANNITY: Yes, and then Michael Moore, we were taught that snipers were cowards. Oh, but I wasn't -- I didn't specifically mention "American Sniper," but yet he does it on the day that it's released, so it's -- you know, in that sense, he's a coward because he really -- he thinks he's being cute by saying, Oh, I didn't really mean it about that, as he tries to back off the controversy because he's getting slammed, Sean.

PARNELL: Well, yes. I mean, the key part of Michael Moore's tweet was that he said -- and it -- you know, he mentioned invaders, and that's a direct slight at the 9/11 generation who raised their right hand to serve something greater than theirselves during a time of war. And these people are the best of us.

And so whenever they're criticized -- and as Jay said, you know, we defended their right to say whatever it is that they want, but you know, we're sick and tired of, you know, some of these Hollywood elites and people that have big, powerful platforms not being accountable for their words, and we're also sick and tired of them sort of shaping the way that our society and our culture views veterans.

So that's why it's important for Jay and other military veterans to speak out, so that we have our voice heard so that that doesn't happen.  You know, I'm always reminded of a Hemingway quote (INAUDIBLE) Critics are somebody that watches the battle unfold from the high ground and then come down and shoot the survivors. And that sounds a lot like what's happening right now.

HANNITY: All right, guys, you did fantastic. Appreciate it. And interesting that Michael Moore doesn't come on TV and go head to head with one of you guys and defend those comments. I'd like to see that debate.

PARNELL: I'd be happy to do it.

HANNITY: And he's welcome here any time if he wants to debate either one or both of you. So...

REDMAN: You know, Sean, anybody that knew Chris knew that he was somebody that when he was out and about, he loved to practice his choke-out (ph) skills. So all the people that know Chris are going to laugh at this.

(LAUGHTER)

REDMAN: So but I guarantee you, if Chris was still walking around today and he was with Michael Moore, he would be glad to put Michael Moore to sleep.

(LAUGHTER)

HANNITY: Probably take him about nine seconds. Wouldn't take that long, if he could get his arm around his neck!

神は死んだのか

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1966/1101660408_400.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THEOLOGY Toward a Hidden God (See Cover)

 
http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19660408,00.html

Is God dead? It is a question that tantalizes both believers, who perhaps secretly fear that he is, and atheists, who possibly suspect that the answer is no. 

tantalize:じらす、じらして苦しめる

Is God dead? The three words represent a summons to reflect on the meaning of existence. No longer is the question the taunting jest of skeptics for whom unbelief is the test of wisdom and for whom Nietzsche is the prophet who gave the right answer a century ago. Even within Christianity, now confidently renewing itself in spirit as well as form, a small band of radical theologians has seriously argued that the churches must accept the fact of God's death, and get along without him. How does the issue differ from the age-old assertion that God does not and never did exist? Nietzsche's thesis was that striving, self-centered man had killed God, and that settled that. The current death-of-God group* believes that God is indeed absolutely dead, but proposes to carry on and write a theology without theos, without God. Less radical Christian thinkers hold that at the very least God in the image of man, God sitting in heaven, is dead, and—in the central task of religion today—they seek to imagine and define a God who can touch men's emotions and engage men's minds. 

summon：呼び出す、命令する

taunting：声に出してののしる

jest：冗談

thesis：論題、命題、

striving：努力する

If nothing else, the Christian atheists are waking the churches to the brutal reality that the basic premise of faith—the existence of a personal God, who created the world and sustains it with his love—is now subject to profound attack. "What is in question is God himself," warns German Theologian Heinz Zahrnt, "and the churches are fighting a hard defensive battle, fighting for every inch." "The basic theological problem today," says one thinker who has helped define it, Langdon Gilkey of the University of Chicago Divinity School, "is the reality of God."

A Time of No Religion.

Some Christians, of course, have long held that Nietzsche was not just a voice crying in the wilderness. Even before Nietzsche, SÖren Kierkegaard warned that "the day when Christianity and the world become friends, Christianity is done away with." During World War II, the anti-Nazi Lutheran martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote prophetically to a friend from his Berlin prison cell: "We are proceeding toward a time of no religion at all." 

do away with：・・・・を廃止する、殺す

For many, that time has arrived. Nearly one of every two men on earth lives in thralldom to a brand of totalitarianism that condemns religion as the opiate of the masses—which has stirred some to heroic defense of their faith but has also driven millions from any sense of God's existence. Millions more, in Africa, Asia and South America, seem destined to be born without any expectation of being summoned to the knowledge of the one God. 

thralldom：奴隷の身分、束縛

Princeton Theologian Paul Ramsey observes that "ours is the first attempt in recorded history to build a culture upon the premise that God is dead." In the traditional citadels of Christendom, grey Gothic cathedrals stand empty, mute witnesses to a rejected faith. From the scrofulous hobos of Samuel Beckett to Antonioni's tired-blooded aristocrats, the anti-heroes of modern art endlessly suggest that waiting for God is futile, since life is without meaning.

 premise：前提、根拠

citadel：城、とりで、拠り所

Christendom：全キリスト教徒

grey：灰色

mute：無言の

scrofulous

hobo：浮浪者、ルンペン

For some, this thought is a source of existential anguish: the Jew who lost his faith in a providential God at Auschwitz, the Simone de Beauvoir who writes:

"It was easier for me to think of a world without a creator than of a creator loaded with all the contradictions of the world." But for others, the God issue—including whether or not he is dead—has been put aside as irrelevant. "Personally, I've never been confronted with the question of God," says one such politely indifferent atheist, Dr. Claude Lévi-Strauss, professor of social anthropology at the Collège de France. "I find it's perfectly possible to spend my life knowing that we will never explain the universe." Jesuit Theologian John Courtney Murray points to another variety of unbelief: the atheism of distraction, people who are just "too damn busy" to worry about God at all. 

Johannine Spirit.

Yet, along with the new atheism has come a new reformation The open-window spirit of Pope John XXIII and Vatican II have re vitalized the Roman Catholic Church.

Less spectacularly but not less decisively, Protestantism has been stirred by a flurry of experimentation in liturgy, church structure, ministry. In this new Christianity, the watchword is witness: Protestant faith now means not intellectual acceptance of an ancient confession, but open commitment—perhaps best symbolized in the U.S. by the civil rights movement—to eradicating the evil and inequality that beset the world.

flurry：突風、動揺

experimentation：実験

liturgy：礼拝式

watchword：合言葉、標語

witness：目撃者、証人

confession：自白、告白、宗派

eradicate：根絶する

beset：包囲する、付きまとう

The institutional strength of the churches is nowhere more apparent than in the U.S., a country where public faith in God seems to be as secure as it was in medieval France. According to a survey by Pollster Lou Harris last year, 97% of the American people say they believe in God. Although clergymen agree that the postwar religious revival is over, a big majority of believers continue to display their faith by joining churches. In 1964, reports the National Council of Churches, denominational allegiance rose about 2%, compared with a population gain of less than 1.5%. More than 120 million Americans now claim a religious affiliation; and a recent Gallup survey indicated that 44% of them report that they attend church services weekly.

secure：安定した、確固とした

clergymen：聖職者

denominational：宗派の、教派の

allegiance：忠誠

affiliation：加入、提携、友好関係

For uncounted millions, faith remains as rock-solid as Gibraltar. Evangelist Billy Graham is one of them. "I know that God exists because of my personal experience," he says. "I know that I know him. I've talked with him and walked with him. He cares about me and acts in my everyday life." Still another is Roman Catholic Playwright William Alfred, whose off-Broadway hit, Hogan's Goat, melodramatically plots a turn-of-the-century Irish immigrant's struggle to achieve the American dream. "People who tell me there is no God," he says, "are like a six-year-old boy saying that there is no such thing as passionate love—they just haven't experienced it."

Practical Atheists.

Plenty of clergymen, nonetheless, have qualms about the quality and character of contemporary belief. Lutheran Church Historian Martin Marty argues that all too many pews are filled on Sunday with practical atheists—disguised nonbelievers who behave during the rest of the week as if God did not exist. Jesuit Murray qualifies his conviction that the U.S. is basically a God-fearing nation by adding: "The great American proposition is 'religion is good for the kids, though I'm not religious myself.' " Pollster Harris bears him out: of the 97% who said they believed in God, only 27% declared themselves deeply religious.

qualm：良心のとがめ、不安、疑念

 pew：信徒席

qualify：資格を与える、述べる、

proposition：主張、計画、提案

bear out：裏つける

Christianity and Judaism have always had more than their share of men of little faith or none. "The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God,' " wrote the Psalmist, implying that there were plenty of such fools to be found in ancient Judea. But it is not faintness of spirit that the churches worry about now: it is doubt and bewilderment assailing committed believers.

Psalmist：賛美歌作者

faintness：失神状態

bewilderment：当惑、うろたえ

assail：攻撃する

Particularly among the young, there is an acute feeling that the churches on Sunday are preaching the existence of a God who is nowhere visible in their daily lives. "I love God," cries one anguished teenager, "but I hate the church." Theologian Gilkey says that "belief is the area in the modern Protestant church where one finds blankness, silence, people not knowing what to say or merely repeating what their preachers say." Part of the Christian mood today, suggests Christian Atheist William Hamilton, is that faith has become not a possession but a hope.

blankness：空白がある状態

Anonymous Christianity. In search of meaning, some believers have desperately turned to psychiatry, Zen or drugs. Thousands of others have quietly abandoned all but token allegiance to the churches, surrendering themselves to a life of "anonymous Christianity" dedicated to civil rights or the Peace Corps. Speaking for a generation of young Roman Catholics for whom the dogmas of the church have lost much of their power, Philosopher Michael Novak of Stanford writes: "I do not understand God, nor the way in which he works. If, occasionally, I raise my heart in prayer, it is to no God I can see, or hear, or feel. It is to a God in as cold and obscure a polar night as any non-believer has known." 

ジャパンタイムズ社説

 

A wake-up call for Japan
   
Jan 23, 2015  
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/01/23/editorials/a-wake-up-call-for-japan/#.VMTnprf9ncs

The safety of the two Japanese men held hostage by the Islamic State group remained unknown after the 72-hour deadline set by the group for the Japanese government to pay $200 million in ransom in exchange for their lives passed on Friday. All-out efforts must continue to achieve their release. The extremist militant group should realize the folly of its actions and promptly release the two men.

There is no legitimacy in the acts of the group, which has threatened to kill Kenji Goto, a freelance journalist, and Haruna Yukawa, a private security contractor, if Japan fails to pay the ransom. In a video posted Tuesday on websites associated with the Islamic State, a masked man brandishing a knife and standing between the two kneeling hostages stated that Japan had “volunteered to take part in this crusade” against the group when it “donated $100 million to kill our women and children, to destroy the homes of the Muslims … and in an attempt to stop the expansion of the Islamic State, you have also donated another $100 million to train the (apostates).”

Islamic State, however, has the facts completely wrong. As the government has emphasized, Japan’s $200 million aid to countries involved in conflict with the Islamic State, pledged by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe during his Mideast tour, will be used for humanitarian aid to help refugees in Syria and Iraq dislocated by conflicts in the region — not on the military operations against the extremist group.

Regardless of the facts, though, any attempt by Islamic State to achieve its goals through kidnappings and death threats is unjustifiable, no matter what the purported cause might be.

Yukawa, from Chiba, was reportedly kidnapped by the group last August after going to Syria to train with militants, while Goto, a respected journalist known for his coverage of the consequences of conflicts on people, especially children, is believed to have been seized after he entered Syria in October to cover the civil war there. There have been reports that Goto went to Islamic State-controlled areas to search for Yukawa, whom he knew. The demand for their ransom was obviously timed for Abe’s trip, which took him to Egypt, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories, and the pledge of Japanese aid to the region.

The Islamic State group, which has seized large swaths of Syria and Iraq in its violent quest to create an Islamic caliphate, has been suffering losses from airstrikes by a U.S.-led coalition. It is speculated that by targeting Japan, which is not a party to the military operations, the extremist group hopes to divide international support for actions against the militants.

The hostage crisis should not deter Japan in its efforts to contribute to the global fight against terrorism in its own, nonmilitary ways. It is only natural that Abe — while emphasizing that saving the lives of the hostages would be the government’s top priority — stressed that the international community must not cave in to threats of terrorism.

What’s also needed in Japan is an increased awareness that the country and its people are no longer immune from acts of international terrorism. The warped logic behind Islamic State’s demand for ransom suggests that an appeal to reason — by emphasizing, for example, the humanitarian nature of Japan’s aid to Middle Eastern countries — does not eliminate the danger of the nation and its citizens being targeted. The government, businesses and people need to be on guard, particularly against attacks on Japanese nationals overseas.

That does not mean that the focus of Japan’s efforts toward international security should change. Japan has earned the respect of many people in the Middle East for its post-World War II era pacifist policies. Humanitarian and economic aid to help eradicate poverty and improve medical and education systems contribute to alleviating societal conditions that sow the seeds of militant extremism. Japan can and should continue to contribute to the fight against terrorism in this way.

共同通信ニューヨーク支局長 Hajime Ozaki氏インタビュー

Japan striving to rescue second hostage from Islamic State

TRANSCRIPT

HARI SREENIVASAN, PBS NEWSHOUR ANCHOR: For more about today’s beheading of one Japanese hostage and Japan’s efforts to free the second, we are joined now by Hajime Ozaki. He is the New York bureau chief of the Kyodo News Agency.

So, what steps did the Japanese government take to try and free this particular hostage? Or what are they still doing to try to get the next one?

HAJIME OZAKI, KYODO NEWS: I believe that the Japanese government is trying all its effort to release Mr. Kenji Goto, the second hostage, so there are channels, including neighboring countries, countries to ISIS, and then Jordan and so on.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Uh-huh. And there’s been some concern that this is in retaliation to the prime minister’s visit to the Middle East region, pledging another $200 million for countermeasures against ISIL, but also humanitarian support.

HAJIME OZAKI: Correct. Prime Minister Abe last week visited Cairo and issued that statement that the Japanese government is trying to help the refugees and neighboring countries to ISIS, which are fighting the threat of ISIS. Apparently, ISIS seized the moment of Prime Minister Abe’s statement, and the ransom that they demanded coincides with the amount of the money that Prime Minister Abe pledged to humanitarian assistance.

HARI SREENIVASAN: So, is there any chance Japan would pay the ransom? I mean, back in the late ‘70s, there was an incident in Bangladesh and there was some question about an incident in the late ‘90s in Kyrgyzstan. Was there an official government policy that said they wouldn’t pay?

HAJIME OZAKI: The official government policy is to comply with the kind of international norm, that not to bend to the threats of the terrorists. So, it is understood that the Japanese government is not ready to pay the ransom.

But everything may be possible. But, on the other hand, now ISIS changed their demand from the ransom to the release of the hostage taken in Jordan.

HARI SREENIVASAN: So, what has the reaction been in Japan over the past few days? Obviously, this news broke so late at night that most Japanese were asleep and they won’t know until tomorrow morning and & that will be the reaction to this hostage’s assassination. But over the past several days, as this story has been building in Japan, what’s it been like?

HAJIME OZAKI: Yes, of course, most of the Japanese population are very much concerned and worried about the fate of the two hostages, and there was a press conference by one of the — the mother of one of the hostages the other day, and it — her appeal to free the — free her son was widely appreciated and a lot of compassion grown in Japanese society.

HARI SREENIVASAN: All right.

HAJIME OZAKI: On the other hand, there are some sentiments in certain people in Japan that the guys went to Syria knowing that there are risks, and there are some voices that blame the behavior –

HARI SREENIVASAN: That they engaged in risky behavior.

HAJIME OZAKI: Right, correct.

HARI SREENIVASAN: OK, Hajime Ozaki, the New York bureau chief of Kyodo News Agency, thanks so much.

HAJIME OZAKI: Thank you very much.