特朗普政府與原教旨主義末世論_風聞

《外交政策》刊登自由撰稿人，公共演説家，宗教與政治、美國基督教右派、俄羅斯、和外交政策評論員，目前是因斯布魯克大學“後世俗衝突研究項目”的高級研究員克里斯托弗·斯特魯普文章《從基督教講壇蔓延開來的美國伊斯蘭恐懼症》

文：Christopher Stroop

譯：由冠羣

我17歲時，在基督教佈道會上第一次聽到有人將伊斯蘭教等同於恐怖主義，當時我還只是印第安納波利斯傳統基督學校的一名高二學生，我媽媽是那所學校小學部的老師。那是1998年，當時伊斯蘭恐懼症還沒有在西方成為主流。我們一家人在卡默爾郊區參加了一個小型的跨教派福音教會，我父親是那裏的音樂牧師。

那天早上，首席牧師馬庫斯.沃納説：“一個虔誠的穆斯林，應該渴望殺死基督徒和猶太人。”他堅稱這是他仔細研讀《古蘭經》後得出的唯一結論。儘管我現在已是一個不可知論者，當時的我還是個福音派信徒，不過我仍對這種極端的説法感到不適。如今，在新西蘭基督城槍擊案發生之後，類似的反穆的言論應該被視為與反猶言論同樣令人厭惡。

但在實際操作中，美國對反穆和反猶言論執行着根深蒂固的雙重標準，這一點從伊爾汗·奧馬爾參議員反以色列言論掀起的軒然大波中可見一斑。美國正確地將反猶主義視為毒藥，並且（至少左派）實行着言論監督，不管有心還是無意的反猶言論都不放過。但伊斯蘭恐懼症卻仍然塑造着美國外交政策，受基督教鼓勵的反穆言論常常不受任何批判地在公共領域大行其道。

作為美國首批進入國會的兩位女性穆斯林議員之一，奧馬爾關於以色列的言論的確讓人產生反猶主義聯想。她後來在《華盛頓郵報》發表評論時，在遣詞造句上更加謹慎，沒有再使用“效忠”這個詞——這是許多人批評她的正當理由。然而，許多針對奧馬爾的批評不僅是惡意的，而且其背後的伊斯蘭恐懼症與反猶主義的惡劣本質並無不同。

白人新教徒保守勢力擔心權力和影響力下降，而這種擔憂又塑造了特朗普政府。當前多元化和民主化在美國社會遭遇挫折，類似的先例在歷史上並不鮮見。不久之前，美國新教徒還把“雙重效忠”的帽子扣在猶太人頭上，質疑他們的愛國本色；在上世紀六十年代，肯尼迪成為美國首位信仰天主教的總統，也有人質疑過天主教徒的忠誠度。

今天，類似的言論再次出現。由福音派基督徒和小部分猶太裔美國人構成的保守派又開始兜售他們的陰謀論，宣稱穆斯林兄弟滲透了美國政府，穆斯林正密謀將伊斯蘭教法強加於美國。

由宗教牽扯出的反穆情緒對美國外交政策構成巨大破壞。前中情局局長、現任國務卿蓬佩奧等仇視伊斯蘭教的人在特朗普政府中扮演着日益突出的角色。相比美國之前歷任總統執政時期，特朗普政府的外交決策尤其受到反多元主義的基督教原教旨勢力影響，這部分信徒對穆斯林表現出特別強烈的敵意。白人福音派基督徒不僅是特朗普的選民基礎，也是當今美國最傾向於本土主義的人羣。

從冷戰至今，多數福音派新教徒堅持末世論（注：eschatology，研究歷史終結及其相關方面的哲學或者神學理論 ）信仰——它基於19世紀對《啓示錄》和其他預言性文本的解釋——傾向於將基督的主要敵人與蘇聯聯繫在一起。1948年，以色列不可思議地作為一個現代國家復國，這被福音派用來證明他們解讀聖經預言的正確性。1970年出版的哈爾·林賽的暢銷書《聖經預言：消失的偉大地球》成為了福音派的標準末日敍事，大大普及了時代論神學（注：dispensationalism，保守派基督教信徒相信神在聖經聖約中透過一系列的"時代"或歷史上的時期來給與人類啓示）的千禧年前論（注：premillenialism，基督教神學末世論學説，認為基督將於千禧年之前復臨世界）。

林賽把俄羅斯描繪成聖經中的“瑪各王國（kingdom of Magog）”，根據“預言”它將在末日之戰中率領邪惡力量作戰。但在冷戰結束後，尤其是最近幾年，福音派基督徒開始擁戴俄羅斯總統弗拉基米爾·普京，因為他重視“傳統價值觀”。儘管福音派極力尋找，但仍難就誰是新的瑪各達成共識。而就在這時，隨着反伊斯蘭情緒在福音派教徒中蔓延，主要由穆斯林組成的國家（比如伊拉克戰爭時期的伊拉克）便可以臨時充當這樣的角色。福音派作家喬爾·理查森就曾表示，敵基督者（Antichrist）將來自伊斯蘭教。

美國對以色列的政策深受福音派末世信仰影響，這十分令人擔憂。福音派千禧年前論和敵視伊斯蘭的思想在美國國務卿蓬佩奧的身上均有體現，他是一名福音派長老會教徒，曾經明確支持反穆陰謀論狂人弗蘭克·加夫尼，還發誓要與邪惡鬥爭到底，直到“被提（rapture）”（注：基督教末世論概念，認為耶穌再臨時信徒將復活高升並獲得不朽）。當然，蓬佩奧不久前確實也説過“我們都是亞伯拉罕的子孫”，但如果你瞭解福音派教義就會發現其實他話裏有話。福音派認為猶太人是以撒（注：亞伯拉罕與正室妻子所生）的後裔，阿拉伯人是以實瑪利（注：亞伯拉罕與女僕所生）的後裔，二者之間永遠不會有和平。

儘管美國福音派的政治與地緣政治行為的主要目的不是迎來末日天啓（apocalypse），但顯然他們也不會阻止這樣的事發生。福音派按照他們理解執行上帝的旨意，而他們對聖經預言最常見的理解便是現代國家以色列必須擴張國土，恢復古以色列王國的疆域，因為那是上帝應許賜給亞伯拉罕、以撒和雅各後代的土地，而且以色列必須重建耶路撒冷聖殿，這樣末世才會降臨，而現在聖殿遺址被伊斯蘭教第三大聖寺阿克薩清真寺佔據。這就是為什麼福音派長期以來一直支持美國承認耶路撒冷為猶太國不可分割的首都，併為此不斷遊説美國政府。

這些白人福音派希望迎來末日天啓，而特朗普顯然願意推動他們的激進事業，這不但體現在美國決定將駐以大使館從特拉維夫遷往耶路撒冷，還體現在開館儀式上特朗普隨行新教牧師的選擇上。其中一人叫約翰·哈吉，他寫過很多關於世界末日的書，他把納粹屠殺猶太人説成上帝的計劃，目的是召喚猶太人重返以色列。另一名牧師叫羅伯特·傑夫里斯，這個曾在2017年讓唱詩班合唱“讓美國再次偉大”聖歌的人，毫不掩飾地宣稱所有不皈依基督教的猶太人都會下地獄。

儘管蓬佩奧、理查森、哈吉和傑夫里斯等人與時下的白人民族主義者不同，他們一般都努力避免發表露骨的種族主義言論，但他們的觀點仍然是有害的，他們虔誠的宗教語言不過是偏執思想的遮羞布罷了，而他們的種種言論都在助長世界各地的羣體性暴力。最近猶太人和穆斯林遭受暴力攻擊的原因都是白人至上主義者的仇恨，比如2018年10月27日匹茲堡“生命之樹猶太教堂”槍擊事件和今年3月15日新西蘭基督城的清真寺遇襲事件，兩者分別導致11人和50人喪生。

 為了顯示團結，“生命之樹猶太教堂“的會眾為新西蘭清真寺槍擊案受害者募捐了58000多美元。這次善舉令人回想起明尼蘇達州的穆斯林社區是怎樣與猶太社區攜手推進民權的，那些穆斯林許多是來自索馬里的難民，而奧馬爾議員就是從那裏走出來的。我們有合法途徑確保奧馬爾謹慎發言，比如她可以批評美國對以色列的政策，但不可以批評猶太人；另一方面，那些企圖利用奧馬爾來證明伊斯蘭陰謀“滲透政府”或“以教法統治美國”，進而散佈恐慌情緒的人，不應該獲得任何公共輿論空間。

但不幸的是，這種陰謀論在白人福音派——他們72%的人支持某種形式的“禁穆令”——當中十分常見，而這些人對特朗普政府有巨大的影響力。當前本土主義籠罩美國權力最高層的情況是可怕且危險的，它將引發更多羣體性暴力事件，並導致中東地區局勢失穩——相比奧馬爾批評美國以色列公共事務委員會，白人福音派的威脅要嚴重得多。

​

America’s Islamophobia Is Forged at the Pulpit

The first time I remember hearing Islam equated with terrorism from the pulpit, I was a 17-year-old junior at Heritage Christian School in Indianapolis, where my mom was—still is, in fact—an elementary teacher. It was 1998, long before Islamophobia seized the Western mainstream. My family attended a small, nondenominational evangelical church in the suburb of Carmel, where my dad was the music pastor.

“A good Muslim,” our head pastor, Marcus Warner, intoned that Sunday morning, “should want to kill Christians and Jews.” He insisted that this was the only conclusion possible from a serious reading of the Quran. As a doubting young evangelical who would later become an agnostic, this extreme statement made me uncomfortable even then. Today, in the wake of the shootings in Christchurch, New Zealand, it should be considered every bit as offensive as the worst anti-Semitic tropes .

But a harsh double standard has been in effect, as the brouhaha over the comments by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) proved. The United States recognizes anti-Semitism for the poison it is, and polices—at least on the left—even accidental falling into its tropes. But the religiously inspired Islamophobia I grew up with continues to shape Washington’s foreign policy—and Islamophobic statements too often pass without criticism in the public sphere.

To be sure, the statements about Israel by Omar, one of the first two Muslim women ever elected to U.S. Congress, did conjure up anti-Semitic tropes. In a recent op-ed in the Washington Post, she chose her words more carefully, avoiding the rhetoric of “allegiance” that rightly caused many to criticize her language. Some of that criticism, however, was not only made in bad faith—it was shaped by the very Islamophobia that darkly mirrors anti-Semitism.

The presidency of Donald Trump has been shaped by the fear of decline in power and influence among conservative white Protestants. This moment of backlash against increasing diversity and democratization is familiar. Not so long ago, the dual-loyalty trope was employed by American Protestants not only to impugn the patriotism of Jews, but also of Catholics, prominently during the 1960 election, when John F. Kennedy ultimately became the United States’ first Catholic president.

There is a similar notion in play today when conservatives—often evangelical Christians, along with a small number of Jewish Americans—traffic in conspiracy theories about the supposed infiltration of the U.S. government by the Muslim Brotherhood and suggest that Muslims seek to impose sharia law on the United States.

But the most damaging impact of religious Islamophobia may be in foreign policy. Islamophobes like former CIA head and current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo loom large in the Trump administration. Under Trump more than under previous presidents, U.S. foreign policy has been shaped by an anti-pluralist, fundamentalist form of Christianity whose adherents exhibit a particularly virulent animosity toward Muslims. White evangelicals make up not only Trump’s base but the single most nativist demographic in the United States today.

During the Cold War, evangelical Protestants, most of whom adhered (and still adhere) to a set of eschatological beliefs based on a 19th-century interpretation of the Book of Revelation and other biblical texts considered prophetic, tended to associate the primary enemies of Christ with the Soviet Union. The historically improbable founding of the modern state of Israel in 1948 was used to prop up the validity of their understanding of biblical prophecy, and Hal Lindsey’s popular book The Late Great Planet Earth, published in 1970, became the standard evangelical narrative of “the end times,” popularizing an interpretation of the eschatological scheme known as dispensational premillennialism.

Lindsey represented Russia as the kingdom of Magog, which was “prophesied” to play a leading role among the forces of evil in the Battle of Armageddon. Since the end of the Cold War, and especially in recent years as some evangelicals have embraced Russian President Vladimir Putin because of his stance on “traditional values,” evangelicals have struggled to find a consensus replacement candidate for Magog. Meanwhile, as anti-Islamic sentiment has increased among evangelicals, predominantly Muslim powers (such as Iraq during the Iraq War) have sometimes been floated as possibilities, and evangelical author Joel Richardson has suggested the Antichrist will arise from Islam.

The influence of evangelicals’ end-times beliefs on U.S. policy toward Israel is a serious concern. Both these strands of popular evangelical thinking—dispensational premillennialism and Islamophobia—can be found in Pompeo, an Evangelical Presbyterian who has expressed support for the views of Islamophobic conspiracy nut Frank Gaffney, and who has vowed to struggle against evil “until the rapture.” To be sure, Pompeo has more recently said, “We’re all children of Abraham,” but when you understand that evangelicals are taught that Jews are descended from Isaac and Arabs from Ishmael, and that there will never be peace between them, that statement takes on a different, coded meaning.

American evangelicals’ actions on the political and geopolitical stage are not primarily targeted at bringing about the apocalypse—but they are certainly not trying to prevent it.  Evangelicals seek to follow God’s will as they understand it, and their most common understanding of biblical prophecy suggests that Israel must expand its borders to align with those of the ancient biblical kingdom God promised to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that Israel must rebuild the temple—the site of which is currently occupied by the Al-Aqsa Mosque complex, the third-holiest site in Islam—before the end times can come. This is why evangelicals have long since widely supported, and lobbied for, the recognition of Jerusalem as the undivided capital of a Jewish state.

Trump’s willingness to pursue the radical agenda of apocalyptically minded white evangelicals was on display not only in his administration’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but also in the choice of Protestant pastors he brought along to speak at the embassy’s opening. John Hagee, who has written numerous books about the end times, has characterized the Holocaust as part of God’s plan to gather the Jews back in Israel, and Robert Jeffress, a man who had his church choir perform a sort of hymn called “Make America Great Again” in 2017, has made no secret of his belief that Jews who do not convert to Christianity will go to hell.

Views like those of Pompeo, Richardson, Hagee, and Jeffress are not innocent. Even if they generally take greater care to avoid explicitly racist statements like those found among contemporary white nationalists, their religious language is a mere veneer on bigotry, and their words add fuel to the fire that results in mass violence, whether in the United States or abroad. The consequences of white-supremacist hate have recently played out in devastating attacks on both Jews and Muslims, in the Tree of Life syngagogue shooting in Pittsburgh that took 11 lives on October 27, 2018, and in the attack on two mosques in Christchurch that took 50 lives this month, on March 15.

In a gesture of solidarity, the Tree of Life Congregation has raised more than $58,000 for the victims of the New Zealand mosque shootings. The act recalls the ways in which the Minnesota Muslim community of Somali immigrants—many of them former refugees—from which Omar comes has generally worked in concert with the local Jewish community to promote civil rights. And while there are legitimate ways to press Omar to make sure she uses language critical of Israeli policy rather than critical of the Jewish people, those who would use her presence to engage in fearmongering over Islamic “infiltration” or “creeping sharia” should be given no quarter in our public sphere.

Unfortunately, such views are common among the white evangelicals who are exerting unprecedented influence on the Trump administration, 72 percent of whom support some form of Muslim ban. The hold of such nativism in the highest echelons of American power is frightening and dangerous. It will produce more mass violence and further destabilization of the Middle East—a much greater threat than is posed by criticizing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

(End)