올 추석이 두려운 것은 형편이 어려워서 시장보기가 어려워서가 절대 아닙니다. 생활은 풍요로워졌지만 마음이 악해진 것 때문입니다. 그 결과 지난여름 아프간 사태 이후에 믿지 않는 친척을 만나면 겪게 될 비난이 무서운 것입니다. 아프간 피랍사태 이후 인터넷 게시판을 도배한 악플을 다는 사람들도 정말 무서웠습니다. “세금 아까우니 죽어라”, “(텔레 반과) 협상하지 말라”, 심지어 “잘 죽었다.”라는 온라인 악플도 무서웠지만 이제는 평소에도 신앙 때문에 우리를 향해서 좋지 않은 감정을 내비친 친인척을 만나면 겪게 될 오프라인 핍박 때문에 추석 명절이 두려운 것입니다.
그러면 왜 하필 테러위험 지역인 아프가니스탄에 갔는가라고 말을 하지만 분쟁지역이야말로 현실적으로 외국의 도움이 가장 절실히 필요한 지역입니다. 그리고 비록 정부의 권고에 따르지 않았지만 그곳은 여행금지구역은 아니었기에 법을 어기고 간 것이 아니라는 점을 사람들은 구별하지 못하고 있습니다. 우리나라는 단군이래로 이렇게 자유스럽게 해외를 나갈 수 있는 시대가 없었고 우리 여권은 미국 여권으로 갈 수 있는 나라보다 더 많은 나라를 들어갈 수 있다는 것은 우리가 져야 할 국제사회에 대한 책임 또한 크다는 것을 말해줍니다. 그러므로 어떤 면에서 테러의 표적이 될 만큼 국력이 신장되었기에 겪는 성장통(成長痛)이었다는 점도 간과해서는 안 됩니다.
물론 살아 돌아온 이들이 귀국하면서 죄송하다고 말은 했지만 정말 죄송하다고 말해야 할 사람들은 따로 있다는 사실을 우리는 잊고 있습니다. 처음부터 온라인을 통해서 비난의 말들을 들어야 그룹은 자신들을 돕기 위해서 간 선량한 민간인을 인질로 납치한 탈레반 테러리스트들입니다. 그들이 우리 국민들에게 진심으로 죄송하다고 말해야 할 당사자들입니다. 그러나 처음부터 끝까지 그들은 대한민국 사람들로부터 비난의 주요표적이 된 적은 없습니다. 납치된 사람들이 기독교인이라는 이유로 인해서 종교적 편견을 가지고 물량주의 우월주의 선교니 하면서 오히려 선한 일에 참여한 사람과 그들의 종교를 비난하기 바빴습니다.
생각해 보십시오. 3박 4일 휴가조차 도움을 필요로 하는 이웃을 위해 내어본 적이 없는 사람들이, 지갑 열어 남을 도우는 일에 앞장 서 본 적도 없는 사람들이, 적어도 백 수십만 원 자기 비용을 들여서 인류애와 박애 정신으로 아프간을 다녀온 이들에게 비난의 돌팔매를 한다는 것은 말이 되지 않습니다. 선진국이 되기 위해서는 값을 지불해야 합니다. 이들은 이번 여름 우리 대신 수고하고 생명을 드린 이들입니다. 그러므로 국가도 이들에 대한 구상권(求償權)을 논하는 것이 아니라 “라이언 일병 구하기”처럼 국민 한 사람 한 사람을 귀히 여길 때 그 기본임무를 다하는 것입니다.
What makes this Chuseok holiday so daunting is certainly not financial hardship or difficulty in grocery shopping. While our material lives have grown more affluent, people's hearts have hardened. As a consequence, following the Afghan hostage crisis this past summer, believers are terrified of the condemnation they will face when gathering with non-believing relatives. The malicious commenters who flooded internet message boards in the wake of the kidnapping were genuinely frightening. Horrifying comments like “Die already, don't waste our taxes,” “Do not negotiate (with the Taliban),” and even “Good riddance” were chilling enough online; but now, Chuseok is feared because of the real-life persecution awaiting from relatives who already harbored ill feelings toward our faith in everyday life.
People ask, “Why on earth did they go to Afghanistan, of all dangerous places?” Yet, realistically, conflict zones are the very places where foreign humanitarian help is most desperately needed. Moreover, although they did not heed the government's advisories, it was not an official travel-ban zone at the time, and people fail to distinguish that they did not violate the law. Never in our nation's history since Dangun has there been an era where we could travel abroad with such freedom; the fact that our passport grants entry to more countries than even a U.S. passport signifies that our responsibility toward the international community is equally great. Therefore, we must not overlook the reality that, in a sense, this was a growing pain stemming from a national stature that has grown prominent enough to become a target of terrorism.
Of course, those who returned alive apologized upon their return, but we are forgetting who truly ought to be apologizing. From the very beginning, the party that deserved the wrath of online condemnation was the Taliban terrorists who kidnapped innocent civilians who had traveled there simply to help them. They are the ones who genuinely owe our people an apology. Yet from start to finish, they were never the primary target of criticism from the Korean public. Merely because the hostages were Christians, people seized upon religious prejudice, decrying it as “materialistic and triumphalist mission work,” and busied themselves vilifying the very people who engaged in good deeds along with their faith.
Think about it. How can people who have never once sacrificed even a three- or four-day vacation for neighbors in need, who have never taken the lead in opening their own wallets to help others, cast stones of condemnation at those who spent over a million won of their own money to travel to Afghanistan out of genuine humanitarian love and benevolence? To become an advanced nation, a price must be paid. These were people who labored and gave their lives this summer on our behalf. Therefore, rather than debating the right of indemnity against them, the state truly fulfills its fundamental duty only when it treasures every single citizen—just like “Saving Private Ryan.”
Wat hierdie Chuseok-fees so vreesaanjaend maak, is beslis nie moeilike omstandighede of die swaarkry om inkopies te gaan doen nie. Al het ons materiële lewe ryker geword, het mense se harte verhard. Gevolglik, ná die Afghaanse gyselaarskrisis verlede somer, is gelowiges vreesbevange vir die veroordeling wat hulle te wagte kan wees wanneer hulle ongelowige familielede ontmoet. Die mense wat die internetboodskapborde ná die ontvoering met haatbelaaide kommentaar oorstroom het, was werklik angswekkend. Kommentaar soos “Vrek liewer, moenie ons belasting mors nie,” “Moenie met die Taliban onderhandel nie,” en selfs “Lekker dat hulle dood is,” was aanlyn alreeds skrikwekkend; maar nou is Chuseok 'n bron van vrees vanweë die aangesig-tot-aangesig vervolging deur familie wat reeds vantevore slegte gevoelens jeens ons geloof gekoester het.
Mense vra dan: “Waarom moes hulle juis na 'n terreurgevaarsone soos Afghanistan gaan?” Tog is 'n konflikgebied juis die plek waar buitelandse hulp in werklikheid die dringendste nodig is. En hoewel hulle nie die regering se aanbevelings gevolg het nie, was dit toe nog nie 'n amptelike reisverbodsone nie; mense slaag egter nie daarin om te onderskei dat hulle nie die wet oortree het nie. Sedert die stigting van ons nasie was daar nog nooit 'n tydperk waarin ons so vrylik na die buiteland kon reis nie, en die feit dat ons paspoort toegang verleen tot meer lande as selfs 'n Amerikaanse paspoort, wys dat ons verantwoordelikheid teenoor die internasionale gemeenskap net so groot is. Daarom moet ons nie die feit miskyk dat dit in sekere opsigte 'n groeipyn was nie—'n gevolg van 'n nasionale statuur wat soveel gegroei het dat ons 'n teiken vir terreur geword het.
Natuurlik het diegene wat lewend teruggekeer het, om verskoning gevra toe hulle by die huis gekom het, maar ons vergeet dat daar ander is wat eintlik jammer behoort te sê. Die groep wat van die begin af die aanlyn veroordeling moes verduur het, is die Taliban-terroriste wat onskuldige burgerlikes ontvoer het wat slegs gegaan het om hulle te help. Hulle is die partye wat ons volk 'n opregte verskoning verskuldig is. Tog was hulle van begin tot einde nooit die hoofteiken van kritiek deur die Suid-Koreaanse publiek nie. Net omdat die ontvoerdes Christene was, het mense met godsdienstige vooroordele geskreeu oor sogenaamde “materialistiese en hoogmoedige sendingwerk,” en was hulle liewer besig om diegene wat aan 'n goeie werk deelgeneem het, en hul geloof, te veroordeel.
Dink daaroor na. Hoe kan mense wat nog nooit eers 'n drie- of vierdaagse vakansie opgeoffer het vir behoeftige naastes nie, wat nog nooit hul eie beursies oopgemaak het om ander te help nie, klippe van veroordeling gooi na diegene wat meer as 'n miljoen won uit eie sak betaal het om uit opregte menseliewendheid en barmhartigheid na Afghanistan te gaan? Om 'n ontwikkelde land te word, moet 'n prys betaal word. Hulle is diegene wat hierdie somer namens ons gearbei en hul lewens neergelê het. Daarom vervul die staat sy basiese roeping nie deur regskoste of vergoeding van hulle te eis nie, maar deur elke individuele burger kosbaar te ag—net soos in “Saving Private Ryan.”