-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
Sometimes an event in the news can suddenly resonate with a religious text and make you think more deeply. This past Saturday in synagogue we were reading a strange law from the book of Deuteronomy. It says that if someone is found murdered outside a town the elders of the nearest town have to undergo a penitential ritual and say a prayer for absolution that contains the words, “Our hands did not shed this blood.”
It’s odd because no one was accusing them. But what the Bible is really saying is, did we create an environment in which such a crime could happen? Did we give the victim shelter? Did we protect them? Did we do all we could to make sure the roads were safe at night? We weren’t legally responsible for their death but were we in some larger sense morally responsible? Can we really say, our hands did not shed this blood?
As I say, it’s an odd law. But then two days ago we were shocked by the terrible murder of a television journalist and a cameraman in America while their programme was actually on air. Our first thoughts clearly must be with their families, their colleagues and their grief. And of course the explanations for the crime have been forthcoming. The killer1 was a man who thought he had been dismissed from the station because of prejudice and he was determined2 to take revenge. Having done so, he then killed himself. Case closed. And in a legal sense, it is.
But sometimes we have to ask the wider question of moral responsibility. It’s not just the absence of gun control in the United States. Ten years ago it was estimated that an average American child will see 16,000 murders on television by the age of eighteen. Two weeks ago, the American Psychological Association issued a report claiming a connection between violent video games and aggressive behaviour. And it’s not just America. As I was checking these facts on my computer, a pop up ad for a game repeatedly came on showing a man spraying machine gun bullets. Worldwide we live in an age in which spectacular acts of violence have become the quickest way of commanding attention, and in an age of information overload3, that’s the scarcest commodity of all.
Which brings us back to the Bible. When a society condones4 the glamorization of violence, we have to think long and hard before we can say, Our hands did not shed this blood.
有时新闻报道中的事件会突然引起宗教教义的共鸣，让你更深刻地思考。过去的周六在犹太教堂中，我们从（圣经）申命记中读到一条奇怪的法律。该法律称：如果有人在一座城镇外被谋杀，那么，最近的城镇中的长者必须进行忏悔仪式，并用下面的话语祈求宽恕：“我们的双手没有沾染鲜血。”
这一点非常奇怪，因为没有人指控他们。但是《圣经》真正要表达的意思是，我们是否创造了让这种罪案得以发生的环境？我们是否给凶手提供了庇护所？我们是否保护了他们？我们有没有尽最大努力保证夜晚道路的安全？从法律上来说我们不需为受害人的死负责，但是从更广泛的道德意义上讲我们是否应该承担责任？我们是否能说，我们的双手没有沾染鲜血？
就像我说的，这是一条奇怪的条文。但是两天前，美国一名电视记者和摄像人员被残忍地谋杀，当时他们的节目正在播出。该案件骇人听闻。我们首先必须慰藉他们的家人，他们的同事，对他们的悲伤感同身受。当然，对该案件的解释也随之而来。凶手是一名男子，他认为自己因为偏见被这家电视台解雇，他决定采取报复行为。行凶后他也自杀身亡。案件结束。不过，这只是从法律的层面来说。
但是有时我们必须询问与道德责任有关的更广义的问题。并不仅仅是因为美国枪支管制的疏漏。十年前，据估计，平均一名美国儿童在18岁之前将在电视上看到1.6万次谋杀。两周前，美国心理学会发表了一份报告，宣称暴力视频游戏和挑衅性行为有关。并不是只有美国是这样。我在电脑上验证这些事实真相时，一个游戏弹出广告反复显示一名男子拿着机枪扫射。全世界都生活在这样的时代，场面壮观的暴力行为成为吸引注意力的最快方式，而且信息超过负荷，这是有史以来最可怕的社会。
这让我们再次回到《圣经》。当一个社会容忍暴力行为时，我们必须冷静下来认真思考，才能问心无愧地说，“我们的双手没有沾染鲜血。”
收听单词发音 |
1
killer
|
|
| n.杀人者，杀人犯，杀手，屠杀者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
overload
|
|
| vt.使超载；n.超载 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
condones
|
|
| v.容忍，宽恕，原谅( condone的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
购买
在百度中搜索