Home » “Religious freedom” in China: an oxymoron

Comments

“Religious freedom” in China: an oxymoron — 23 Comments

  1. As an instinctive *first worder*, I’ll just note here that Plato’s Dialogue Nomoi (usually translated as “Laws”) begins with the word Theos (God). It is the only surviving Platonic dialogue to do so.

  2. From 1999-2017 I led a Baptist ministry with internationals most of whom were graduate students or visiting scholars. Most were from China.

    In 2010 I was given a mini-sabbatical and spent four weeks traveling through China visiting about ninety Chinese friends whom we knew from their time in Baton Rouge.

    I visited both “house churches” (not approved or regulated by the government) and Three Self churches. Interviewed Chinese Christians belonging to both. In 2010 members of house churches described harassment and interference from authorities but not arrest or imprisonment.

    (I mostly saw and met with Chinese Christians. I saw Muslims and Buddhists in Shaanxi province. Did not see signs of Taoism until hiking near Qingtao.)

    In 2011 the largest unregulated church in Beijing – which I visited and had a long interview with some members – was in the news. They had been kicked out of the building where they met. When they held a worship service in a public park they were arrested and put on buses.

    One goal of the trip was to try and see the state of religion in China. Chinese Christians seemed to have a moderate amount of religious freedom. But something changed in 2011. The Chinese government became more openly hostile and aggressive in clamping down on any form of religion that was not somehow under their control. Twice the Chinese journalist I interviewed in Beijing came to Baton Rouge to give talks at Louisiana State. During his second visit we spent a few hours together.

    Over the last decade I’ve been following with concern how China treats religion.

  3. In Beijing I’ve seen huge grim police watchtowers in residential neighborhoods. Not being a fool, I did not attempt to photograph them, and was careful to show no interest in them. I have never seen them depicted in Western media.

    China barely tolerates the Chinese religions, and does what it can to corrupt their religious and clergy as well.

  4. “Religious freedom” in China: an oxymoron
    ==
    Xi and his camarilla are gratuitously hostile to Taiwan. We saw what they did to Hong Kong. We can wager what they will do to Macao and try to do to Singapore. They’re infuriated by any collection of Chinese which does not function as a curated ant colony.

  5. While vacationing in China our family attended Catholic services several times. We were careful not to get the locals in trouble through asking overly probing questions, but we learned the Chinese government tolerated the Catholic church’s presence there, to a point, but as neo wrote, their tolerance waxed and waned.

    They mostly didn’t mind participation by foreigners who were temporarily living there with their families in order to offshore companies and business to China, but if Church attendance got a little too local, or proselytizing to locals got energetic they would shut services down.

    Those who know the Catholic service will find this interesting: attendance would swell by about 1/3 just before Communion was distributed. Some of the local Chinese knew of the claim that the Eucharist contained miraculous powers and would pop in towards the end of Mass to receive it in hopes it would bring them luck.

  6. Art Deco,

    I don’t pay close attention, but I haven’t noticed the Chinese government getting overly involved with the Republic of Singapore. It is true that the natural prejudice of Chinese culture means Singaporeans of Chinese ancestry mostly see themselves as superior to the native, Malay. And the Malay seem to tolerate their second class status in their native land. However, the Malay feel superior to the Filipino nannies and construction workers brought in to serve the population.

    Those who think the U.S. is a racist land have not traveled outside the U.S.

  7. I saw an article in a major publication (I forget which) lauding the artistic architectural feat of converting a 100 year old Cathedral in The Netherlands to an indoor swimming pool.

    Europe has to find something to do with all its empty, Christian churches. Like Hagia Sophia, most will likely become mosques.

  8. Rufus: “Those who think the U.S. is a racist land have not traveled outside the U.S.” So true!

  9. We don’t want some people here, so why shouldn’t China have the same right?
    I really don’t like the people that go to another country, and try and convert them to the visitors religion.

  10. Shirehome @ 10;39 pm:
    I see your point. Especially regarding the “religion of peace” — Islam.
    I don’t like China’s anti-freedom agenda
    with their intimidation and persecution of all free thought that leads away from worshipping the government. (Though that’s no surprise, from communism.)
    But I also think America is too lenient — foolishly so — in it’s enabling of Islam’s spread, here.

  11. I missed the edit window.
    On my above comment, re: American Islam & freedom here:
    The growing presence in our politics — government elected positions and the judiciary — does not seem wise.
    (I do, however, recognize their recent aid in fighting some “woke” agenda policies in schools. We have an overlap of reason, there. Perhaps, or likely,they have likewise aided the recent anti-woke wins in the UK.)

  12. Judaism, according to “Why The Jews” need not be a proselytizing religion to be noticed and to teach lessons. Unfortunately, some of those lessons–hard work, education, sober living–make others feel bad and….

    Had some folks from out Presbytery (large group of churches’ next-higher organizing group) go to China back in the day.. Thought it was great. But they thought the same of the USSR.

    I guess it all depends.

  13. Two-part-article on trying to explain China that I meant to post last night, from Lorenzo From Oz, discussing a Chinese sociology book by a well regarded Chinese author.
    Part II is more pertinent to this thread, I believe.

    Part I: https://www.lorenzofromoz.net/p/from-the-soil-i From the Soil (I): Understanding China
    China as a networks and connections society. [4/15/25]
    Part II: https://www.lorenzofromoz.net/p/from-the-soil-ii-understanding-china From the Soil (II): Understanding China in the World
    Reflections on Sinic Korea & Vietnam, Indic Thailand, the dilemmas of Xi, the politics of activist bureaucratisation, and traditions of Chinese… [4/19/25]

    A networks and connections society fits with David P Goldman’s portrayal of China as something of a Mafioso led society.

  14. Not to worry, Rufus (@7:27 pm).
    The Malaysians—in Malaysia— work hard to correct that “peculiar” attitude vis-a-vis the Chinese in that country…with interest…(the notable difference being that in Malaysia, it’s the Chinese who pretty much power the economy).

  15. Rufus

    Some years ago, our town had an exchange student from Malaya. She was Chinese and Christian. Did well. Couldn’t get into uni in Malaya. Likely they have a DEI thing going.
    Came back, got into U-Mich and a BS in Chem Eng. MS in same from U-Wis. Really good job. Married an American and naturalized.
    We win.

  16. @Richard Aubrey:Couldn’t get into uni in Malaya. Likely they have a DEI thing going.

    Chinese in Malaysia are restricted by regulations and quotas which lead to a lot of them leaving. Not every country is ashamed to legally favor a particular ethnicity…

  17. @SHIREHOME

    There are a bunch of claims with your formulation.

    We don’t want some people here, so why shouldn’t China have the same right? I really don’t like the people that go to another country, and try and convert them to the visitors religion.

    Firstly: That stance only makes sense in our world without the concept of universal imperium, which eventually gave us Westphalia and its children. To understand the problems with applying that status to China, you need to look at its behavior. Or start with the fact that It’s not really “China.”

    “China” is a foreign exonym adopted for convenience by outsiders based on its fine China pottery (not so much Qin the first founder). The locals overwhelmingly call it “Zhongguo”, which more or less translates into “The Central State.” That is the Central, Controlling State of the World. China and Chinese officialdom have rarely if ever viewed themselves as just one country among many, but as the rightful hegemon of the planet. And it used to be even more ostentatious.

    The Huangdi, the Son of Heaven, was not merely the mightiest or most magnificent of the sovereigns of the world, or the one most favored by the Celestial Bureaucracy and the Yellow Emperor. He was the ruler of the civilized world, in effect acting as Heaven’s Governor-General on Earth much like the Muslim Caliph is meant to be, and all other states were to be regarded as vassals or tributaries. This paradigm survived thousands of years and something like a dozen dynasties depending on how you count the legitimacy in periods of civil war and the early, pre-Zhou dynasties of questionable dominance and sometimes existence. Even outright foreign conquest did not really shatter it because usually the foreigners would adopt the mechanisms of Chinese power and governance (at least on the rivers and lowlands) and rule as Emperors.

    It took confrontation with the West in the 19th century to break it, at considerable cost. And we rightfully can look back at many of the horrors that involved and brought with disgust. But it is usually less detailed that the fateful collision – the point of no return – was Lin Zexu’s decision to blockade all the British nationals in “Canton” and starve them to death, whether or not they were guilty of involvement in piracy or opium smuggling (as many doubtless were) or not. Because you see, in matters between states, the Central State and its ruler were absolute, as a father was to their children.

    Even Mao and Xi were not quite so brazen as to try and frame it in such a way, but they have worked hard to reinstitute Chinese hegemony over the Far East, with blatant indifference to their own treaty signatures. If you doubt this, observe the Peoples’ Armed Police Maritime piracy in international waters and even the territorial waters of other countries, or go to your friendly local Confucius Institute serving as a center for secret police raids, detention, and torture.

    This is not a matter of China asserting “rights” like “not to want some people”, but asserting the “Right” to Negate the Rights of all others.

    That is different. It has consequences that no itineration of our system since the late Renaissance can hope to survive full implementation of.

    Beyond that, like it or not the likes of Christianity and modern Judaism and Islam – and a host of others – were never merely “the visitors’ religion.” If one believes in them they include the grand commission to preach the truth to all the world, and it is obvious the CCP does not object to Christianity per se (as shown by their own servile “Patriotic” Churches and by financing useful idiot Christian groups abroad) but to their inability to control it.

    You don’t have to like it. That is your right. But you need to be aware that the implications of the inability to exercise that thing you don’t like will greatly affect your own rights.

  18. The mafia element, when the ruling circles in china wanted to look past mao they took examples from the kmt and the green gang, a series of novels of a magical realist type by pf kuang which takes a look at the brutal realities of the japanese occupation and the precursors of the opium war, called the poppy war
    Theres another series set in prewar era by chloe gong
    Which has romeo and juliet themes with the

  19. Turtler:

    That’s fascinating.

    One small point, however. You write:

    Beyond that, like it or not the likes of Christianity and modern Judaism and Islam – and a host of others – were never merely “the visitors’ religion.” If one believes in them they include the grand commission to preach the truth to all the world …

    Christianity and Islam, yes. Judaism, no. Judaism is not a proselytizing religion nor does it even encourage converts although it accepts them. See this.

  20. @Neo

    Fair enough Neo, though I would counter that there are a few proselytizing Jewish sects (even if they tend to be in the minority), and merely accepting conversions is a remarkable step that seems less remarkable to us because of how drastically the world has changed from what used to be the norm. It’s not as evangelical as say many forms of Buddhism and to a lesser extent Hinduism, but still worth noting.

    And of course our friends in the CCP wish to exert control over or destroy it all.

  21. The People’s Republic of China is no longer a communist country, although they still spout some commie rhetoric. No, rather than being international socialists, they have transformed into national socialists.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>