Виртуальные костры.

В Государственной думе, как известно, недавно проходил голосование закон "Об информации" , который, как считается, направлен на борьбу с педофилией, порнографией, пропагандой наркотиков и экстремизмом. Вряд ли кто-то в здравом уме будет выступать против подобной инициативы. Надо бороться с педофилами? Вне всяких сомнений. Надо ограничивать доступ к информации, которая может каким-либо образом повредить человеку? Несомненно.

Но, как обычно, возникает вопрос - какая конкретно литература (произведения) попадает по эту категорию?

По всей видимости та, которая распространяет идеи от которых могут пострадать люди? Без вопросов - глянем в историю. В европейской истории (читай - мировой) есть такая страница, как Реформация, которая открыла дорогу религиозным войнам на континенте и привела к гражданской войне в Англии.

The Reformation in western/central Europe officially began in 1517 with Martin Luther (1483-1546) and his 95 Theses. This was a debate over the Christian religion. At the time there was a difference in power. Roman Catholicism stands with the Pope as central and appointed by God. Luther’s arguments referred to a direct relationship with God and using the local vernacular to speak to the people (in sermons, etc.). Luther’s arguments remove the absolute power from the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church in general. The revenue from the taxes paid to the Church would be reduced with Luther’s ideas, in part because of the removal of buying souls out of purgatory. If purgatory exists, then the Pope should empty it out of goodness and love, and not for the reason of money. There is also the removal of the power of buying one’s pardon (and with it salvation) from the Church. The focus shifts from buying pardons to spending that time and money for works of mercy and love. Overall this presents an argument that removes the infallibility from the Pope and as a political entity, the Church loses monetary funds and power in general. The Church, while losing power over the masses of people, also lost political power. Previously taxes were collected from the people (peasants to landowners) and paid to the kings, who in turn paid the Pope. In return they received monetary assistance when needed, as well as the international prestige of the Church. Now there were options. Kings could still collect taxes from their subjects, but it was not required that the Church be paid as well. The money could be used at the discretion of the king. This was related with countries becoming wealthy enough to defend themselves against the Pope’s army, insuring their independence (the kings’, not subjects’ independence). Countries become independent entities in and of themselves, not relying on the Pope’s protection but having the ability to raise their own armies.

The role that religion played in people’s thinking, and, indeed, in the shaping of the events of those two decades, cannot be over-stated. While there were a host of economic, political and social factors contributing to the civil wars, it was religious issues the primarily drove the conflict – from Charles’ attempts to impose the prayer Book in Scotland, to a widespread fear of Catholicism, to the power of the bishops. As king and archbishop looked to make the church less Calvinist in its theology and more ritualistic in its practice, Puritans, fearing a return to ‘papery’ and wanting to keep the church ‘reformed’, joined forces to oppose him. Cromwell’conclusion that ‘religion was not at first the thing contested for,but God brought it to that issue at last … and at last it proved to be that which was most dear to us’ is well known, and one of the most respected historians of the period, John Morrill, has suggested that the English civil war was ‘the last of Europe’s wars of religion’.

The War of Three Kingdoms famous to most as a bloody series of revolutions and civil wars fought across Britain and Ireland in between 1638 and 1651 where dozens of factions all fought, allied, betrayed and re-allied against one another, where religious fanaticism married political radicalism and blatant opportunism, and a million people lost their lives. It all ended at the battle of Worcester in the west of England in 1651 when Oliver Cromwell defeated the invading Scottish Army of Charles II. Or so we’re told.

When each ruler attempted to enforce religious conformity within his domain, religious intolerance, already the norm, was intensified. Special police and courts were set up to investigate and penalize non-conformity. Expulsion, imprisonment, torture, the death penalty, mass executions and massacres were tools of religious repression applied by both Catholics and Protestants. To these afflictions of European society, already inured to centuries of judicial cruelty, were added the destruction and demoralization of the protracted religious wars.

Что интересно - речь во всех случаях идет, по сути дела, о трактовке одного источника и как выяснилось в ходе развития истории разные люди имеют разные взгляды на один и тот же текст.

Если взять еще более древние времена, то можно увидеть, что Западная и Восточная ветвь Римской империи имела ровно те же проблемы с источниками знаний. В итоге, как видим, получаются отнюдь не виртуальные, а вполне себе такие реальные жертвы. Что же это тогда выходит?

Получается, что гражданам вообще лучше запретить чтение любых источников информации, что бы они не дай Бог не наломали дров? Но тогда, выходит, надо ограничивать доступ к многоплановым текстам при чтении которых возможно формирование разных точек зрения?

Может быть вообще стоить запретить мерзопакостных людишек из-за их неспособности к пониманию гениальных мыслей и знаний? Думаю, что это было бы самым лучшим решением проблемы пропаганды "вредных идей" по причине полного отсутствия потребителей :)