China's Policy on Religion - Is It Really Wrong?

“Take the Sri Lanka and 9/11 attacks as examples,” Du continues. “What’s the point of ensuring justice after due process, when all the victims have been killed? That’s why I’m emphasizing the preventative measures the Chinese government takes. It’s proven that this measure is the key to fight terrorism.” - Makes sense to me.

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/07/720608802/reporters-notebook-uighurs-held-for-extremist-thoughts-they-didnt-know-they-had?fbclid=IwAR14Xhk9akOVmmoQj6UIFaPgfFq49bTOaVimqUebbquHlt5wzgoTTpSVE94

On the face of it, it seems wrong to Americans, because it is part of our constitution that we can have no laws regarding the establishment of religion. Also, our law requiring due process, is for our living society. Justice for victims is important, but due process for the accused is equally important.

But thanks for the alternate perspective.

Seems like it’s less about Islam and more about keeping the Uighurs in their place.

China doesn’t like them doesn’t want them to become the new Tibetans.

@TimB

I totally agree that due process for the accused in important. However, most important is to take preventative measures against serious injustice/crime/atrocities. There China has been doing a better job than the West involving Islamic fanaticism. As for freedom of religion, it must be truncated for freedom, dignity and rights of humanity. Here is a recent example where Islamic fanatics have been taking advantage of the Western policies of freedom of religion to try to maintain their religious injustice against women.

https://humanism.org.uk/2019/05/20/600-pupils-reportedly-withdrawn-from-birmingham-school-as-protestors-announce-god-created-women-for-mens-pleasure/?fbclid=IwAR0Ye9O682Ml-DQ1CdYj9kWeQB_vpSblc8QsSEwzkqBLXoKGGDIoH-GOpmE

Is there even a radical islamist movement with the Uighurs?

I’m not seeing easy answers here. We do this in America with home schooling, so this isn’t just a Muslim thing. There are plenty of Christians saying similar things to their children. Compulsory education can only exist in public schools. We can’t control every detail of private education and still call our nation “free”. This has to be fought in the battleground of ideas.

I’m a bit torn on this question.

As a recovering Catholic I am acutely aware of the monstrous harm organised religion causes and has caused to the human race.

I am also aware religion meets a lot of human needs. If it did not, religion would not be universal.

Of course dictatorships want to control religion, but as far as I can see have never yet fully succeeded, although personality cults meet some of the needs of religion .

The question of ‘right’ over the actions of the Chinese government are largely irrelevant. ALL governments work on the principle of perceived best interests. No government makes makes policy , wars or even human aid on moral grounds. It gets confusing at times because all governments (including the PRC) constantly try to take the moral high ground, while none can realistically make such a claim. Current example; the Brexit shower. To an outsider, that is very obviously about political power.

I have no problems with the PRC banning obvious cults and scams such as Scientology or even dubious ones such as Falan Gong. I can understand why they would want to control all religions. I can’t really complain about that.: My position is that ALL organised religion within a society needs to be controlled by the State:,

What I would like to see, along with the world’s first aerial display by a squadron of flying pigs:

All clergy would be required to have paying jobs not associate with their religion. IE self supporting.

All religions would be subject to taxation.

No religion would be permitted to own land or property. This would all belong to the community/parish served by that particular branch of a religion. When no longer viable, such assets would be distributed to the members of the parish/community. If that was not practical, the assets would go to the State, with a regulation that proceeds must be spent on say hospitals , schools, or medical research

No religion would have exemption from any law, especially dealing with say discrimination, or for the Catholics, the so-called ‘seal of confession’ whereby a priest may not tell ANYONE about what he has heard in confession.

I’m sure there’s a lot more, but the above are the main issues about religion which crumble my cookies.

 

No religion would be permitted to own land or property. This would all belong to the community/parish served by that particular branch of a religion. When no longer viable, such assets would be distributed" to the members of the parish/community. If that was not practical, the assets would go to the State, with a regulation that proceeds must be spent on say hospitals , schools, or medical research"

Careful. The religious right will burn you on the stake

Sam, I sympathize with your position. But I am loyal to our Constitution. Our govt. must not be involved in running re-education camps for people who have dangerous and anti-humanistic religious beliefs. Now, once the religious nuts actually break our laws, I am all for putting the screws to them. But we cannot put them in camps for having evil beliefs. If they act on the evil beliefs then we can then respond to the actual law breaking. But again we cannot make laws that effect the establishment of religion. We cannot make their religious beliefs illegal.

One major problem with Islam is that the religion is also, fundamentally, a manifesto for a government. So in contrast, our govt does not allow laws to be made that effect the establishment of any religion. But fundamentalist Islam can be The Government. It is pre-packaged and ready made to take over in chaotic social systems where there is an absence of effective governance. Just add water and some zealots who are willing to take and maintain rule by any means necessary in the name of Allah.

We infidels should therefore be seeking alliance with moderate followers of Islam, who do NOT expect nor want it to be a governing body, and who are willing to, and who seek to, observe their religion within the context of a secular society.

@timb

True enough. The same can be said of Christianity. Until the Protestant reformation, ‘christian nations’ were effectively theocracies. The Pope was the most powerful individual amongst Christian nations until well into the Renaissance .

The Protestant Churches also had the same kind of control over their flock, some still do. The difference today of course is that civilised nations insist on the separation of Church and state. If this wass not the case, there is no doubt in my mind that religionists of all kinds would still be happily killing anyone who upset them in all kinds of entertaining ways. They do a fairly good job of that in some the gulf states EG public beheadings, stonings, hanging people slowly.,chopping off limbs.

.I think the seeds of theocracy are within any organised religion; one reason I loathe them.

 

Could the Democratic Party be viewed as a form of organized religion?

“Could the Democratic Party be viewed as a form of organized religion?”

I don’t believe so,. Political parties are not in and of themselves religious organisations. I guess they can become such for dogmatic and shallow ideologues. That would make them similar to a religious organisations. Religions are based on blind faith, and are impervious to reason or facts.

 

PS: I was a member of the Australian Labor party all of my working life. BUT, I was never ‘a true believer’, always seeing the flaws in the organisation. When the flaws became too many for me, I left without a moment’s regret.

PD said “…Religions are based on blind faith, and are impervious to reason or facts.”

TimB replied: You mean like Trumpublicanism?

Back on topic. I think it is important to distinguish private schools from state mandated re-education camps.

TimB replied: You mean like Trumpublicanism?

 

Now that you mention it, I think so.

There seems to me to be a correlation (pardon the phrase) between “Trump supporter” and “poor white trash”. As a group, they seem staggeringly ignorant, very gullible and rather stupid. Or am I just being elitist?.

 

@TimB

Seeking alliance with moderate followers of Islam would probably work where Muslims are a small minority, in which case they cannot impose their excessive religiosity on the society; and, indeed, most moderate Muslims are too religious. Practically no Muslim-majority nation observes Islam within the context of secular societies. Thus, secular societies need to take actions to discourage Islam before it becomes a serious problem. I think it is already a significant problem in the UK.