> ...Christianity, which by some estimates is China’s fastest-growing religion, promotes Western values and ideals like human rights that conflict with the aims of China’s authoritarian government and Mr. Xi’s embrace of traditional Chinese culture and Confucian teachings that emphasize obedience and order.
> But the government’s heavy-handed efforts to obliterate several high-profile churches have been met with resistance among Christians....
> “If you see the police, national security or community workers greet them with gentleness,” Wen Hongbin, an elder at Xishuipang, told the congregation. “If they try to grab the microphone, I ask the brothers sitting in the front row to please stop them.” ...
> Independent churches like Early Rain, with more than 500 members, have attracted large followings in recent years, especially among white-collar workers seeking an escape from rampant materialism at the center of modern Chinese life.
> While sermons at state-sanctioned churches are often tightly scripted, independent churches boom with searing indictments of corrupt officials and rousing calls to protect the rights of the poor....
> “I saw injustices in society,” Mr. Gu said. “I saw that the government’s promotion of China as a just country that enforces laws in a civilized manner was all a lie.”
> Worried for his own safety, Mr. Gu recently closed his business, hoping to avoid government scrutiny. He said he has grown fearful as he has watched the police arrest his friends.
These people are much braver than I am, and I wish them peace and strength to overcome these trials.
> ...Christianity, which by some estimates is China’s fastest-growing religion, promotes Western values and ideals like human rights that conflict with the aims of China’s authoritarian government
This is the part that confuses me.
I'm not sure what Christianity intrinsically promotes (ask 12 Christians and I suspect you'll receive 13 conflicting opinions). But practically speaking, governments and ruling classes have used it for nearly two-thousand years to promote social order and subservience.
It's been used to justify the Crusades, and slavery. Within living memory it's been used to justify Jim Crow laws, and the Salvation Army used as a tool against labor union organizing. It's been used to promote leftist regimes in Catholic South America, and the far-right "Protestant work ethic" class structure in the USA. It's been used everywhere to enforce a social order based on strict sexual norms and patriarchal gender roles.
Christianity became one of the Top Two religions on earth, precisely because of how malleable it is. In other words, in practice, it tends to promote whatever the ruling class in a given place and time WANT it to promote. It's been that way since Emperor Constantine.
So why try to violently suppress it? That's never been an effective strategy. Just co-opt it, and make it promote whatever Chinese/Confucian values you want like everyone else does.
You have a grave misreading of the history of Christianity. It was used as a control device when it was centrally controlled and delivered (like all religions)...the invention of the printing press changed all of that with the Reformation. Once the knowledge was spread through the people and open to interpretations, the general direction of Christianity (despite all the faults of modern movements) has trended towards equality and freedom, which is much in line with the Gospels. Martin Luther and John Calvin had a profound impact, and once you saw those movements you began to see all the modern western values emerge, from economics to political freedom.
In Chinese history it's a little different. The Taiping rebellion was a militant uprising against the ruling Manchus by a Christian Millenarian sect known as the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, in the mid 19th century.
It was the bloodiest war of the 19th century, and the bloodiest civil war in history, with an estimated 20-70 million killed.
You don't have to agree with China's response to these chruches, but maybe you can understand why they get nervous when Christians start getting uppity.
> In Chinese history it's a little different. The Taiping rebellion was a militant uprising against the ruling Manchus by a Christian Millenarian sect known as the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, in the mid 19th century.
> You don't have to agree with China's response to these chruches [sic], but maybe you can understand why they get nervous when Christians start getting uppity.
That's just a pretext, if anything. This oppression isn't some challenging but benevolent attempt by the Communist Party to protect China from a bloody civil war based on past historical experiences, it's part of systematic campaign to protect the personal and institutional power amassed by China's unelected leaders and keep the country submissive to them.
The answer to your second question is no, unless you believe that a unified Catholic Germany would have stayed out of or won the First World War. I believe you are referring to some quotes by Martin Luther that no Lutheran church propagated or even remembered for the most part. The portions of Luther’s writings that spread through Germany were his large and small catechisms, Smalcald articles, etc., that were contained in the Book of Concord compiled shortly after his death.
As for the Calvinists, I hope you know you associate with very unusual people. There are a lot of Calvinist-founded colleges.
It matches what’s written in the OP article: “The government has focused its campaign on unofficial Christian churches that promote ideas like social justice or have been critical of the party’s grip on society.”
And knowing what’s documented about the CIA activities in the past, which include using religion(1) I fully understand that attitude.
Focused ? Why that word ? That's very different from only unofficial churches ?
This is a fact that comes back in the stories of Chinese people very often: it doesn't matter how "approved"/legal or tolerated something is. Parts of the government go after it. Parts of the party are in open war with eachother, to the point that they send child services after eachothers' children, police after restaurants that commit the crime of allowing political rivals to eat there, and then there's the occasional moral panic, which is the most disruptive. Every now and them some fact will make the news, through social media most often.
This may be quality of goods (food for children happened once, but has likewise happened with houses, animal feed, ...), relationship stuff (e.g. a young couple, a girls pictures "leaking", in some cases outright racism (romeo and juliet couple), ...) someone dying from exhaustion while gaming, a few people very sick or dead from food poisoning, hospitals getting caught abusing psychological patients, ... and then the police will take "action".
By that of course we mean arresting hundreds whose only crime is to be in the same street as where the news event happened. Or arrest everyone under 16 out after 18h. Or arrest everyone including owner and customers in every internet cafe, or real cafe. Or ...
They're innocent. Doesn't matter of course. They get convicted. And yet, under normal circumstances, anyone in China will tell you it's absurd what you get away with.
I think you’re making the mistake of equating Christianity and Catholicism. They have the same roots but all of the things you’re assigning to Christianity is really the machinations of ‘The Church’ weilding Christians beliefs as a cudgel for the aspirations of ruling bodies.
There is definitely a fine line between the two that is often blurred, but Christianity at its core is about people who are oppressed finding freedom in faith. It’s one of the reasons it is easy to ‘spread’; every culture on earth has oppressors and oppressed.
I think your other point is super interesting however, in that when the oppressed are ‘free’ and become the majority, Christianity doesn’t have much to offer and then becomes the weapon of the ruling class ( or majority ) keeping people ‘in line’.
> "I think you’re making the mistake of equating Christianity and Catholicism. They have the same roots but all of the things you’re assigning to Christianity is really the machinations of ‘The Church’ weilding Christians beliefs as a cudgel for the aspirations of ruling bodies."
I grew up in the rural South. I assure you churches serving as the cudgel of ruling classes is not limited to a single denomination. Catholics are barely represented here, the pattern is nevertheless the same.
I think you'll find that historically, due to the interference from Rome, Catholicism was the denomination that resisted this the most, and that this was in fact a large part of the reason for Protestantism to come into existence in the first place.
You also had William Wilberforce and Oliver Cromwell. Co-option can only go so far: they have state run churches, but those don't appeal to people. See also Dissenters in England during the industrial revolution.
I think part of the answer is that these churches are tied to Western missionary movements pushing a Western reading of Christianity (not so much on purpose as because that's "Christianity" to them).
You're correct that it is whatever people need it to be.
But it is also its own thing, not so much ideologically, but that it is a social grouping and and alternate hierarchy of power separate from the state. Every ruler from Constantine on has had trouble with the Church to some degree, as the Church has always laid claim to various social and political powers that rulers would have wanted for themselves.
In this sense, maybe the Chinese Communists are right to be worried, after all many of the functions churches perform in the west are the exclusive domain of the Chinese State. Coopting it would require them to become Christian themselves, which is what happened in the Roman Empire, but only after Christians had become entrenched in the upper levels of society.
>>Christianity became one of the Top Two religions on earth, precisely because of how malleable it is
Christianity i one the top ten religions on earth--or the most popular, depending on how you look at it. :)
But you are right, its interpretation depends on the Pope. While they are Orthodox and Protestants (fragmented), the Vatican sucks the oxygen out of them when it comes to the media and reputation.
What China is doing is very logical: any religion is a threat to their ideology and if you're a leader in China you don't want that. Who needs the Bible when you have the Chinese version of the Manifesto? Or the Pope when you have Xi Jinping?
> So why try to violently suppress it? That's never been an effective strategy. Just co-opt it, and make it promote whatever Chinese/Confucian values you want like everyone else does.
They also do that. The problem, from the regimes perspective, is that international Christianity (including and with assistance of domestic Christians already indoctrinated into the foreign varieties) keeps sabotaging their efforts to co-opt Christianity.
while there is some interpretive leeway, malleability isn’t a feature of christianity, it’s the effect of coercive power attracted to the centralized conduit of control that religion provides.
if christians actually followed christ’s teachings, we’d see a lot more generosity and a lot less wealth disparity and homelessness.
The fish is a symbol for Christianity precisely because of its long history of being forbidden. The Greek word for fish is an acronym for, iirc, Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit. (That's from memory from taking two classes of Greek in the Bible Belt more than 20 years ago. I think I googled it recently and got something that did not include Holy Spirit.)
It seems to me the Christian tradition of being a persecuted religion makes it well suited to fostering an underground movement in an oppressive climate. I imagine this is the Crux of the issue, both a reason it appeals and a reason the government is trying to shut it down.
I'm seeing some remarks in comments that don't fit my understanding of the history. Christianity spread in part because it was very open to embracing local customs. This is why we have an Easter Bunny and Santa Claus associated with major Christian religious holidays. Jesus also said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." Iirc, he was talking about paying taxes.
So, on the one hand, it's a subversive religion. On the other hand, it's a religion that is flexible and not absolutist. It can coexist with a lot of other things.
Jesus himself was subversive. Among other things, he overturned the tables of the money changers because he was offended that this was at the church.
The biblical stories thus contain information about how to engage in nonviolent resistance. Again, this may be a big part of the appeal. Is there much difference between saving your soul and saving you from tyranny and oppression?
This comment and your others in this thread have broken the site guidelines badly. We ban accounts that do religious flamewar. Please don't post like this again.
Edit: looking further, since you have a history of abusing HN in this way, I've banned the account. Please don't create accounts to break the site guidelines with.
In America, "terrorism" is a term used to justify all sorts of suppression of fundamental rights—usually directed as a religious minority. There is both government and social suspicion of Islamic groups that have no connection to terrorism, they just make people uncomfortable. I strongly, strongly support the freedom of expression of people in the US under vague suspicion of terrorism.
And even Christians in the US can get on the wrong side of this. My old church has a Hispanic congregation that worships in the early afternoon, and some ICE agents came by, not to worship, but because they heard there was a "large Hispanic celebration." My pastor dragged them out. https://theintercept.com/2018/01/19/ice-new-sanctuary-moveme... I can see a very small distance from where we are in the US to declaring that sanctuary churches are aiding terrorism, to defining (as in China) a state-friendly Christianity that is acceptable because it reinforces the desired social engineering of the powerful and a rogue Christianity whose believers need to be arrested for reasons of national security.
(Full disclosure, I am ethnically an Indian "St. Thomas Christian," and although I was born and live in America I was baptized in India, so I might be slightly reacting to your comment out of that. I don't think I am, though, although I certainly haven't kept up with the facts on the ground in India.)
Every politician that we don't like is accused of corruption, in one way of another. I have seen this happening everywhere, and I see no reason to suppose that these denunciation of corruption is not politically motivated itself.
Religious flamewar will get you banned here. Please do not post like this to HN again. The topic is provocative, yes; and that's a reason not to be provoked.
Churchs are organizations of people. Those people live and experience life just like people in unions, political parties, companies, social clubs and sports teams. Why do they get singled out and not allowed to express their opinions based on their experiences?
Completely agree. The political behavior of the Christian church is well known across history, and entails basically getting the best benefits of the government for itself and persecution or suppression for other beliefs. People in this thread trying to support the political activity of Christians in China seem that have no historical perspective of what this religion did and does up to this day to advance its agenda.
I do not understand why your position, that the Christian church gets the best benefits of government for itself, is in agreement with the position above, that the church should not criticize the government.
I would understand your position more if you objected to the Christian churches operating with official approval of the government. In that case it would be very obvious how the church is gaining government power/favors for itself. But how is this church doing so?
Even if your answer is that this behavior is in the DNA of Christianity and will come out at some point, are not the state-sanctioned churches a bigger threat (and, arguably, the unsanctioned churches are helping for now to question the legitimacy of the sanctioned ones)?
Terrorism is often motivated by religion, sure. But racism, nationalism and many other grounds for terrorism exist. You can't be suggesting that people who are peacefully trying to celebrate a holiday are terrorists.
If you think that allowing them to gain power would end up with them supporting terrorists - welcome to the wonderful world of authoritarianism!
The Christian church has traditionally supported all kinds of regime upheavals that support their theocratic views. Especially the ones backed by the US and allies. Then in the same breath they claim to be unjustly persecuted when they are not allowed to freely spouse these views in another country.
(disclaimer, this is more of a FYI than my opinion about anything)
> From the article: The government requires religious groups to register.
China allows for the operation of pretty much all religions including the world's favorite Abrahamic ones. Unregistered religions pique the interest of countries founded on religious persecution, and ignore the operation of registered ones.
Registered ones are able to continue verbatim teachings, but obviously cannot be used to talk about "subversive ideas", in China.
The limitation about what can be discussed, and even the strings attached to the registration requirements (gov't officials part of the church) are things to criticize. Many proponents of any of their religions find registration to be an unfavorable condition.
The point is that this title could just as easily be "China's Christian registrations flourish". Because they do and they are probably the second largest Christian population in the world - simply because the rest of the world is less populated - while a non-registered minority also contains possibly tens of millions of people and it will seem like any massive civil rights crackdown because it also affects millions of people.
This is horrendously inaccurate. Yes, if you're a part of a sect controlled by the Communist Party, you're ok. The idea that this is a viable alternative ... I'm beyond words. The fact that you cannot purchase books at the heart of those Abrahamic religions says enough. You cannot even practice in the safety of your own home.
> This is horrendously inaccurate. Yes, if you're a part of a sect controlled by the Communist Party, you're ok. The idea that this is a viable alternative ... I'm beyond words.
I didn't say or suggest it was a viable alternative. I literally wrote it was unfavorable.
With that in mind, what is inaccurate about what I wrote?
> and even the strings attached to the registration requirements (gov't officials part of the church) are things to criticize. Many proponents of any of their religions find registration to be an unfavorable condition.
This is why it's frustrating when some make it seem that Christians are incapable of facing persecution, based entirely on their experiences in the US.
The Christians in China are very brave for standing by their faith, and I wish them luck and peace.
Yes, I am gobsmacked by their bravery. And as a Christian myself, I am amazed by how they root their bravery in their faith, and not in some idea of social justice. The lead pastor wrote a letter going into this (published after he was detained): http://www.chinapartnership.org/blog/2018/12/my-declaration-...
I think that may be largely filtered through us audiences.
Of course Christians can be persecuted. Any minority is likely to face some level of persecution.
But in the US, it is so commonplace, so entrained in our society that it's hard to take the persecution claim seriously, particularly when weilded in response to things like bakers and their cake businesses.
In fact, that's an example of American ideals working as applied to government action. In an otherwise zero sum game it seeks to shield the minority at the expense of the majority.
>This is why it's frustrating when some make it seem that Christians are incapable of facing persecution,
Literally no one does this. Western Christians are incapable of facing persecution in the current social and economic climate. This is because Christians by and large make up every pillar of Western society. It has nothing to do with someone being a Christian else where in the world. The sentiment you are attempting to inaccurately portray is rooted in the fact that you have silly things like the "War on Christmas" and actual citizens (who are Christians) complaining that obeying the constitution and not imposing their religion on others is somehow equivalent to persecution.
Your conflation of the two is your own error, not others.
I agree with you that the "war on Christmas" stuff is nonsense, but you'd be surprised at how many people write off Christian persecution, based solely on the fact that some of the most powerful nations in the world are "Christian nations".
The lack of awareness on display right now is astounding and borderline offensive, people just don't hold the "opinion" that Christians are persecuted around the world, they are pointing to actual current events of Christian persecution.
You have significantly misunderstood the context of the conversation.
No one has said that Christians aren't persecuted around the world. No one has even implied this was the case. Because people don't hold such opinions.
He is implying that people hold these opinions. I am asking for some kind of substantial material validating the frequency of such opinions.
It helps to respond to the actual conversation instead of contrived strawmans. You are very much proving my point.
+1 For self-awareness, it would have saved you writing out that post.
I am asking for some kind of substantial material validating the frequency of such opinions.
What are the odds that I could go to ten different blogs from ten different Joe's from across the internet saying how bad it is for Christians in the world, come back here, link them, that you'll backpedal more to say that the sources provided aren't authoritative enough?
The problem seems to be conflating the notion that Christians in the US/Western nations are persecuted with the capacity for any Christian or Christian group to be persecuted elsewhere.
Because it's a common response to things like the gay wedding cake and "happy holidays," etc. It's not surprising those things evoke such a dismissal.
But such a dismissal is not all inclusive. Because we don't see, say, gay marriage as a persecution of Christianity doesn't mean we believe Christians are intrinsically incapable of being persecuted.
The opinion he thinks people hold isn't common (or even a thing people hold as an idea in any capacity), it's a contrived straw-man designed to illicit a quick "gotchya" self win on the part of the OP. It belongs in a forwarded email, not in this forum.
The poll won't yield the results you want. The prattling grandstand isn't clever, it's just a rather annoyingly insecure flamebait after you fumbled your original reply to me with links to articles that were entirely irrelevant to what was being discussed.
No one believes Christians can't be persecuted. OP is conflating the dismissal of Western Christian "persecution" with somehow believing that people just don't think it can happen elsewhere. I am here to tell you that people are quite aware of the possibility of true persecution happening against any group of people, and most certainly the actual persecution of Christians elsewhere in the world. The error, however honest it may be, is his. And apparently yours too.
>Western Christians are incapable of facing persecution in the current social and economic climate. This is because Christians by and large make up every pillar of Western society.
This belies a grave misunderstanding of how human societies actually work. It doesn't matter how many of your team are out there in the world when you are one team blue in a room full of twenty team red. If a team has at least two members, then even in a society of billions it is possible for them to be the majority sometimes.
>It doesn't matter how many of your team are out there in the world when you are one team blue in a room full of twenty team red.
I mean if you're going to just go "big number greater than smaller number" and attribute that to a deep understanding of human societies and general political power structures how on earth are you going to explain the current geopolitical situation as it stands today? That's incredibly daft, and your attempt at labeling it as "grave misunderstanding of how human societies actually work" is absurd.
I love how "milktoast" you can see HN being right now. A bluntly factual statement gets flagged on HN. Can't imagine how the demographics of the "hacker" forum played into this.
Wall Street is the first place I've worked that takes Good Friday off. If you're in town, come by Trinity (which is literally at the end of Wall Street) to see how packed it is on Christmas or Easter. Or even on a weekday—does your church have three attended services every day?
I’m not even religious but I recognize that Christian values basically underlie all of western culture, down to a belief in human rights and humanism itself.
It is not a Christian thing, it is a religion tradition all over the world to persecute other religions. Christians have done this for millennia and sometimes they are victims themselves. I think the solution is to stop with the craziness altogether.
Persecution of minorities is a human psychological reflex shared by all living human beings. If you got rid of religious differences you would just end up with more energy going in to race, political teams, and whatever else.
That's actually not true, since we're able to see these types of societies in the present timeline and none of what you just described exists in any appreciable, sufficient manner. In fact we see the exact opposite, to the point where right leaning citizens tend to besmirch the pro social practices of the government.
It's amazing that these types of unexceptionally wrong perspectives, especially whimsical bio-truths, continually get posted on this forum.
When Buddhists persecute Muslims in Myanmar, it isn't because Buddha told them to do so.
But when Muslims persecute yazidis, it is because Mohammed did so, and Quran has verses allowing it.
To stop with the craziness, one should look at what motivates and incentivizes the craziness. And it turns out some religions are crazier than the others.
>While sermons at state-sanctioned churches are often tightly scripted, independent churches boom with searing indictments of corrupt officials and rousing calls to protect the rights of the poor.
>Early Rain, which Mr. Wang founded in 2008, was among the most daring. Mr. Wang called Mr. Xi a sinner, held prayer sessions each year to mark the brutal crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrations around Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989, and organized a fund to support relatives of political prisoners in China.
So just good old fashioned suppression of political dissent. The fact that they were churches could be entirely irrelevant.
Underground churches are stronger every time they are persecuted. Success, prosperity are much more dangerous for most of the christian churches in the western world.
I was surprised by this and the amount of detail regarding the workarounds by the local dissenters. Nowhere in the article did it state that PII was masked.
I wonder if the assumption is that, all the descriptions in the article are already known to the CCP.
I'm a left wing atheist. While people like Dawkins and Hitchens may declare religion the root of all evil, I try to have some self awareness on the subject. I look at the 20th century and need only pick two names, Stalin and Mao, to find left wing atheism being drenched in blood.
Killing for a dogma is the issue. And those who claim that religion is responsible for all misery are precious few philosophical steps away from doing exactly that.
edit2 - For another perspective, while the crackdown on christianity is harsh, the crackdown on muslims is next level. Which is odd on the face of it as muslims tend to be more left wing in practice than christians.
They don't propose it explicitly, they just lead people to it. Once you have started believing that religion is the root of all evil, you do not have to travel very far at all to find yourself persecuting the religious. The position they espouse isn't just a serious logical mistake, it is a terrible moral one.
You don't lead people to theocracy by warning against killing for dogma. On the other hand, creating dogmas about religion being the source of all evil can have pretty awful consequences.
There isn't a simple road between the two positions you gave, there is an entire territory.
Why do you think that’s true? China has cracked down on: democracy in the 80s, Falun Gong, Tibet, Islam, and now Christianity. None of the previous groups have “flourished” yet. Some have basically died, others had to go abroad to survive, none are mainstream in China l.
History is unpredictable, but Christianity has a long tradition of persecution, with even a lot of primary texts (Bible) supporting it, so it is an expected/welcomed experience. This can give the followers a lot of strength under persecution.
Examples:
2 Timothy 3:12 - "Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,"
John 15:18 - “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you."
Or just think of the story of Jesus; when the main character(s) in your religion gets beaten and killed, the followers really feel like they're on the right path when it happens to them too.
Somehow it is easier to be ignorant and believe something happens to you you can't do anything about. There's no problem in that, everyone has a right to live his/her way as long as it doesn't disturb other peoples right to do so.
The problem are the troublemakers that set themselves at the head of those sects and mess things up for those who happen to choose a different mindset.
> Does China have a state religion? Seems like the government clamps down on all of the major religions, is it a secular culture?
A somewhat tongue in cheek take is: China's state religion is Communism and it's state Church is the Communist Party of China. All of its leaders, officials, and people are required to study Communism and pay lip service to it, whether the believe it or not. However, no one there can take Communism too seriously, because the party's real religion is that of centralized power and submission to it: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/11/world/asia/china-student-...
Nationalistic and religious flamewar are not only off topic here, they give off toxic fumes that poison the community. We put a lot of effort into trying not to let such forces destroy this place.
This is why we need to sever economic ties with China. The more we support this the worse this type of thing will intensify, including beyond China's borders....and it won't stop at just Christianity, they have targeted Islam and, Buddhists etc. as well.
On the contrary. I think our leaders should spend more time together. Maybe they should even vacation together.
The US severed economic ties with Cuba in the 60s and look what happened (only recently celebrating Christmas became legal, and property that belonged to the church was returned). There are countless examples like that.
What exactly happened after the U.S. severed ties with Cuba? You make it sound like we lost something.
They are still stuck in the 1960s, their economy is absolute garbage and the people are dirt poor, they lost multiple generations of opportunity.
Have you been to Cuba? It’s like going back in time 70 years.. the country itself is beautiful if they had taken a different path they could be incredibly propsorous. A small country like Cuba could get by on tourism alone and do much better than they do now.
Everyone needs to take their own path, if suppressing people’s religions and no freedom is that path the Chinese want to take then that’s their choice.
Our government and our corporations should not support that.
My point is simple: If the US had not severed ties with Cuba and instead engaged with Fidel (as he initially tried to do with the US), chances are Cuba wouldn't have alienated itself with the Soviet Union, and Christians (and everybody else) would have been much better off.
Repression of the Church didn't happen until years after the revolution and the Soviet Union had become its main ally.
Cuba is worse off today than it was 60 years ago by the way, so in that sense, they aren't "stuck in the 60s".
What did the US lose? An ally and a potentially strong economy to trade with a few miles from US shore. Cuban music had quite some influence on the music of New Orleans, particularly jazz. Cuban musicians would regularly travel back and forth from Havana to New Orleans before the revolution (and the other way around).
It’s not certain that it would. But participation in the global economy is one way to get a country hooked on the economic crack that is the modern financial system. Once they’re hooked, economic sanctions (sometimes just the threat of them) are much more effective in achieving desired behavior.
That’s exactly how it panned out in Korea, Vietnam etc.
China is an outlier because of several reasons but size is perhaps the biggest. Chinese market is so huge it can support China specific versions of everything; the State realized this and used it to effectively control all the new sources of information (mostly internet stuff). No one thought they could do that effectively but hats off to them they did.
Not sure why this is being downvoted, It was absolutely the case being made for why we should be economically involved in China, however it turned out to be dead wrong.
Not entirely accurate - Tiananmen square was just under 30 years ago, and that was a particularly low point. Though I suppose one could argue that pretty much anything after that was an improvement.
Why will severing economic ties change it either way? Do you just mean as a matter of principle we should sanction China, or do you think it will be an effective impulse for change?
One common refrain is that trade has massive material benefits to all parties engaged in it, but when one party is engaged in immoral behavior, one has to question if one wants to strengthen them with those benefits.
Personally, I think a unilateral severing of economic ties would be extremely counterproductive. However, I think eliminating the policy compartmentalization between trade and human rights issues should be seriously considered. Basic democratic representation and de jure and de facto protection of basic human rights (or at least concrete and verifiable steps towards that goal) should be fundamental requirements for having an open trading relationship with any country. Then it's up the the human-rights abusing country to make the choice about whether it wants to trade or not.
My understanding is that many of these trading relationships were liberalized with the idea that trade would bring political liberalization and human rights with it. That idea has been shown to be false, so policy that's based on it should be reconsidered.
both. I doubt it will stop it in China directly, but if you continue to support them economically this is more likely to spread as they gain more global influence. Ideally there should be none, but if you can't have that containment is the next best thing otherwise you expose a larger population to it.
Power, and if I may diplomacy, vacuums never work in the favor of the people who created it in the first place.
The U.S. (and largely other Western) nations enjoy a hefty set of soft power and good economic relations with the majority of countries on this planet precisely because we have actively engaged with them. If you're worried about things getting worse or intensifying, then severing ties with these countries (and China specifically) is a good way to make those worries a very brutal reality.
And if that's not enough the blunt reality is that our economies are too intertwined at this point. We can only play the situation as it is, not back out of it completely unless we mean to shoot ourselves in the foot.
I used to listen to people like Ron Paul, and he would say something like... The stronger our economic ties and dependencies, the less likely we are to commit aggression against each other. I believe he supports the non-intervention policy. [0]
An excerpt from a book by Norman Angell, (Nobel Peace Prize winner, lecturer, journalist and MP) in 1910 as to why wide scale war could not happen between major powers.
[War] belongs to a stage of development out of which
we have passed that the commerce and industry of a
people no longer depend upon the expansion of its
political frontiers; that a nation's political and
economic frontiers do not now necessarily coincide;
that military power is socially and economically
futile, and can have no relation to the prosperity
of the people exercising it; that it is impossible
for one nation to seize by force the wealth or trade
of another -- to enrich itself by subjugating, or
imposing its will by force on another; that in short,
war, even when victorious, can no longer achieve those
aims for which people strive.
It was a fairly widespread view at that point in time.
Does a higher degree of globalization lead to a higher degree of stability and peace? This is a classical and interesting discussion. The world before World War I was arguably highly globalized. I failed to find a comprehensive summary of the arguments and counter-arguments, but here a few links:
“The First World War in the History of Globalization”
IMHO, the argument is partially true. But on the other hand, it increases the complexity of the system, and makes many otherwise unlikely "failure modes" possible.
China represents almost 1/5th of the world's population, you can't simply ignore Chinas global presence. I suggest visiting china for a few weeks, exploring each of their major cities to gain some new perspective.
Severing economic ties at whose expense? Christians in China? Poor people in the US? It’s easy to claim moral superiority if someone else has to foot the bill.
What is even more dangerous is to link religion freedom to the ongoing trade war. It makes good people who are fighting for a just cause look like pawns of the US.
You may have underestimated the value of engagement. The spread of Christianity in China could not happen without the economic ties with China in the past forty years.
Diplomacy clearly does not work with China. The only thing that works is direct, aggressive competition. Hopefully this does not lead to military conflict but I worry that the US and China are on an inevitable path at this point.
I think the two primary things where the US has an advantage over China is diversity (largely driven by foreign immigration) and free information flow. This leads to greater rates of innovation. Maybe not enough to keep China’s gdp from eventually surpassing the US, but that’s largely a glamour stat. The real issue is global power and influence. As shady and domineering as US foreign policy can be at times, a world dominated by China is far more concerning.
Human nature being what it is, most people will look out for their interests first. That said, in this case it affects people of all religions so there is a common uniting issue. It is better when, in general, people of all religions can find common ground and work together on things, but you always have the extremist sects in most of these belief systems where the ideology is "there is only one true belief system and everything else is wrong and must be converted or eliminated". The key is having a moderate majority to counterbalance that. IE: I believe in Christianity, Islam etc., but I respect your belief in "name the alternate religion", see you as a good neighbor and am open to having respectful discussions about our differences if faith for understanding.
> How does news like this even get out of the country with the information controls in place?
China isn't North Korea. There's a lot of travel of both Westerners and Chinese into and out of China, and free-ish communication between them. Within China, you can talk about many things privately without having to worry about the police showing up. The government's big red lines are public advocacy and especially political organization.
News comes out of countries like North Korea as well, since it is incredibly hard to suppress the spread of information, even despite the numerous policies the government has put into place aimed at curbing propagation.
You just need one person to leak it (or 2-3, if you care about journalistic integrity and receive the information from multiple sources). Remember, you don't need true cryptography -- you just need to get information out. It's okay to violate kerckhoff's principle and have a scheme that's dependent on the algorithm itself so that the government can't automatically decrypt your data. Like using obscure steganography. You might be discovered later, but once the information is out, it's out.
It's also what makes things like "Secret societies", and massive conspiracies to be so damned hard to maintain. Information in a high level area wants to equalize to lower levels.
China’s information control, while extensive, is not nearly effective enough to suppress news like this. It’s the same reason we hear of human rights abuses happening in the country.
They're simply cracking down on a particular brand of being staunchly non-aligned with their totalitarian vision of reality. Which is probably exactly what you dislike about Christianity, that total claim to truth, and converting or murdering people in the past, right?
So why gloat when now people get persecuted who aren't persecuting others? Because they carry the same "brain virus" as people who did in the past, as people you can't get at because it's in the past? Demonstrating apathy to murderers in the present, using a shallow similarity of the victims to murderers of the past to even laud them, is completely incoherent, and morally bankrupt.
> Islam and Christianity are just two sides of the same coin
As an agnostic Indian (Hindu family), I’d prefer if you don’t color entire religions and people with a broad brush. As for Christian missionaries abusing laws and forcibly converting people, please cite sources.
Religious and tribal dogma isn’t confined only to certain religions; feel free to believe what you want but try and exercise restraint against unequivocal labeling of others.
As an atheist Indian (Hindu family), I think ideologies can be criticized.
If you can paint Nazis and white supremacy beliefs in a broad brush, so can you criticize religions which unequivocally sentence people to hell for leaving the religion.
I’m not arguing against criticizing ideologies. I have no intention of republishing what the flagged parent said; I merely pointed out that the criticism needs to be valid, properly sourced and have understanding of nuances. This includes criticism of white supremacists and nazis.
IMO — There is no such thing as "independent" churches. It's a very big ecosystem, an ecosystem that has forced us to invent the word "Secularism". Not sure if you have forgotten...
Is your claim that "secularism" means that it's okay for China to have state-approved Christian churches?
If not, can you state exactly what you mean, and whether you believe it's good for China to crack down on non-state-approved churches while also having state-approved churches?
Don't get too happy, they won't last. Christianity put a real dent in the Roman empire and Islam annihilated empire after empire out of nowhere. China will be child's play.
The pope leads Catholics. As an Anglican, Methodist or God forbid (pun intended) a Quaker if the pope leads them and they’d get a good laugh. There are absolutely Protestant denominations that accept biblical stories as absolute truth.
People need to be open to the idea that they're wrong, even atheists. Monocultures where other people are forced to accept your values create stagnation and dangers long term. There have been plenty of evil committed in the name of enforcing that which is righteous: communism, religions of all types, even democracy. It's better to let people have the freedom to make their own choices. You can choose to learn from them or reject to them, but applying pressure to change them is def incorrect imo.
This paints atheism as its own philosophy, but that would be inaccurate. To reject one philosophy does not automatically default you to a separate one.
A null state is still a state. Whether it's a philosophy or not is not a useful distinction in this context. That being said, I'm an atheist of course.
My point is that "accepting all faiths" has gone too far.
> It's better to let people have the freedom to make their own choices.
But accepting the people's choices without examining the content is strange. Don't you think?
Would you accept anything that you don't understand?
I understand there must be some balance. And we might be biased to accepting a faith. But, at least, we should exercise some common sense before accepting it.
And I know. The problem becomes: whose common sense is right?
Religions don't believe things, people believe things. Many religions, if the text of their holy books are taken literally, support violence, sacrifice, slavery, etc. And religions are practiced in different ways in different times, and different places. Not every religious person is an extremist.
My opinion is that you should judge people by the way they actually behave, not by the worst possible interpretation of how their religion says they should behave. Many people follow supposedly "violent" religions peacefully alongside other faiths.
> Many people follow supposedly "violent" religions peacefully alongside other faiths.
This is what I originally meant. I think you understand. We might use different words for the same thing here.
Christian people in the western world would reject many stories in the Bible. Even Pope seems to reject some ancient ideas from the Bible.
Or you can say I consider the old Christianity to be a different religion from the modern Christianity. Because the sets of beliefs differ.
But, in other parts of the world where society isn't as "developed", we just follow blindly what (most of) the book says. We reject very little. Since the book is often ancient, it becomes problematic.
At least, for me, it doesn't even need to be an action. For example, if a person believes that women are properties of men because the religion says so, I wouldn't want to accept that religion. (Let's say that person says it out loud)
Please note, by accepting, I mean "being okay that the person next to you practice this religion". In other words, you can live together in the same area.
I would argue that a western perspective is to wait for harmful action to connect with harmful intent or harmful planning. Then, for the act of harming, a person should be held accountable by society in a reviewable way.
please read the Bible before you make such foolish claims
>Christianity has a leader, which is Pope
Christianity has one leader, and savior (Jesus) who's birth the world is celebrating today. Everyone else is merely a messenger of Christ, although there is an increasing number of false messengers looking to profit off Christ[mas].
When I was young I served Yoshino-kimi, the granddaughter of Tōfukumon'in, a disciple of the imperial temple Hōkyō-ji. Recently she passed away, although I know that this is the law of nature, the transience of the world struck me deeply, and I became a nun. I cut my hair and dyed my robes black and went on pilgrimage to Edo. There I had an audience with the monk Haku-ō of the Obaku Zen sect. I recounted to him, such things as my deep devotion to Buddhism since childhood, but Haku-ō replied that although he could see my sincere intentions, I could not escape my womanly appearance. Therefore I heated up an iron and held it against my face, and then wrote as my brush led me:
...
Formerly to amuse myself at court I would burn orchid incense;
I participate in Christian festivities and find them quite joyful. It's a wonderful time of the year for most of the world.
However, whether countries should allow the propogation of religion and mythology is entirely up to them. Many countries have laws against various forms of deception - and religion straddles that line (of deception) so often. If action is being taken against the people who propagate "falsety" rather than against the "mislead", the ethicality of such action is quite defensible.
> However, whether countries should allow the propogation of religion and mythology is entirely up to them.
Would you be okay with the country you're subject to the laws to "deciding" to put you and your family in prison for holding that opinion? Why is one thing "up to them", but this presumably not?
> If action is being taken against the people who propagate "falsety" rather than against the "mislead", the ethicality of such action is quite defensible.
Then show that is the case, and then defend it. Until then, why even mention the possibility? Isn't that kind of a rhetorical trick? Wouldn't you agree this straddles the line of deception, that is, that you're either "just" deceiving yourself with, or trying to deceive? Can you prove it wasn't your intent, but a honest mistake? If you err on the side of guilty, because "it might be defensible to persecute" is good enough for you, wouldn't it be fair to simply assume the worst of you?
That's not how I would treat people, but when someone makes an ethical argument, the first thing you always, always do is do a quick scan of applying it to them, when it's obvious that they can't be meaning what they're saying, to explain to them what they're saying.
> However, whether countries should allow the propogation of religion and mythology is entirely up to them.
This isn't a democratic country, so you should rephrase your statement justifying this as "whether an authoritarian cabal should allow the propagation of a religion and mythology is entirely up to them"
A person's beliefs are up to them not their government.
> A person's beliefs are up to them not their government.
How do you square that with the fact that most religious people were indoctrinated at an early age by their relatives and community, rather than developing their beliefs on their own? At the end of the day, it's not a struggle for freedom versus government control, it's a struggle over who gets to do the indoctrinating.
> A person's beliefs are up to them not their government
Even democracies have rules against false advertising. We've chosen to give religion a free pass here, though the evidence to back any of its claims is quite flimsy.
This subject is somewhat tough to debate. I had a wonderful Christmas day, though I'm not a believer.
“Writing from the perspective of a person who literally had a life ruined by religious ideology impairing the mental judgement of parental figures. This is literally one of the best things I've read in my life. Going to be unpopular opinion because of people indoctrinated into freedom of expression but why not. Religious ideology has done more damage than terrorism to LGBT people. The result has lead to suicides and the law has done nothing to remedy the people abused. The people running the "faith" systems are nothing more than celebs to people who desire their fix and when it develops into a mental illness of pushing upon others.. people look the other way. Since "who has all the money" gets to keep the show running. No compassion exists in this world. Just agenda pushing by who has all the finances.” Shouldn’t be flagged
Communists ruined (often permanently and quite fatally) lives of far more people. And they don't like the LGBT tribe much either. Short of this being a harbinger of the last communist being hanged with the guts of the last christian (with apologies to Voltaire) very soon, I fail to see how this could be "one of the best things I've read in my life".
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."
But then look at the front page, look how it never applies to everything, not even close, and how trivial, cute subjects never get these complaints.
People are avoiding their own responsibility and don't like when others exercise it. Since I can only guess anyway, that's my guess. What I know for a fact is that the reasons against such a topic simply being where the interest of people puts it, do not hold water, that is, are always selectively applied. That in itself is intellectually interesting, but we are not allowed to personally question posters on HN too much, even when it's done it's barely rewarded with an honest reply, so we aren't intellectuals enough for that stuff. It's pointless to talk about the aggregate of a group when individuals remain opaque, so the whole subject is simply beyond our reach, as intellectually stimulating and important as it may be.
We should know what a double standard is though: If we can pretend wiggly lines satisfy our intellectual curiosity, we can take note of a country that already build massive concentration camps to "re-educate" millions of muslims now does this. We can also take note of the comments welcoming it, and ponder those. But again, that's mostly homework, we don't have the culture capable of doing this as a "community" apparently. That's a "flamewar" or whatever. We don't like growing pains, so we won't grow, that is pretty much settled.
The boundaries are not nearly as arbitrary as you imply. They are determined by what the community has the capacity to discuss while remaining within the site guidelines. If we did it any other way, HN would destroy itself.
> what the community has the capacity to discuss while remaining within the site guidelines
Which is arbitrarily decided on a case by case basis. It seems stuff just gets flagged off the front page by users, and sometimes it has the [flagged] thing, sometimes it doesn't.
People can already hide topics from the front page for themselves, and blissfully ignore them. What is the point of flagging things, are there limits or can people just flag until you arbitrarily take that ability away, where is the accountability? How is taking away the ability of others to speak altogether better than the possibility of some cussing or other things that are harmful to good faith communication?
It may be harder for people to remain civil around lethally serious subjects, but it's not impossible -- and it's not fair to punish everybody, to let random people punish everybody, because you predict what would happen otherwise. It's like a stone that keeps tigers away, on steroids even:
> If we did it any other way, HN would destroy itself.
Any other way? That "way" is still a black box. So this is a super tight rope, and left and right is utter destruction? What does "destroy itself" mean, that the server would vanish? Or that it would "bleed" from one topic into another, and suddenly people are also more irate about wiggly lines?
And of course, if you actually believe that claim, then you can't even make any changes, you can't try it out, because then HN would destroy itself. How perfectly circular.
How do you know the opposite isn't true, that if things are arbitrarily suppressed, it leads to a bad atmosphere and grudges, and people get tempted to bring up a topic when it's not actually the topic?
I'm not sure I understand the grievance here. HN is not all kinds of website, it's just one kind of website. Its mandate is defined by https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, most importantly the bit about intellectual curiosity. Everything else more or less follows from that.
Flamewars destroy intellectual curiosity, so we have to moderate them. If we didn't, they would grow until they consumed everything. That would drive away the users who are here for curiosity. That's what I meant about the site destroying itself.
Curiosity as a motivation on the internet is vulnerable—it doesn't scale. That forces us to intervene in various ways, some of which appear arbitrary at times, if only because providing full explanations of every case would take lifetimes. But people are always welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and ask for clarification. What we can't do is not intervene at all and just surrender to internet default, because that would be giving up on the site mandate.
I suspect there is a strain of anti-Chinese sentiments here. When you see articles relating to black social issues, they immediately get flagged, but articles like these always get through.
There's no way for HN to be immune from macro trends. The macro trend right now, unfortunately, is polarization between China and the West. As I'm sure you've noticed, this has been manifesting dramatically in Western media over the past months. Since the audience here is mostly Western (50% US, 30% Europe, 7% Canada plus Australia, IIRC), it's inevitably going to identify more with one side than the other.
We moderate HN to mitigate the worst aspects of this, but there's no hope of eliminating it. HN is controlled by its community. All that moderation can do is adjust the margins.
Plenty of such articles have been discussed here, and we've often turned off flags on the more substantive ones. It really depends on the specific article and how well it fits the mandate of this site. Not all social-issue articles do.
I see that the growth of China is driving Americans nuts, and they are trying to manufacture all kinds of ridiculous reasons to hate the Chinese, and not disclose that their reason number one is envy. The situation of religion in China is much better nowadays than it was ever before. A few decades ago the Chinese government would incarcerate anyone who propagated religion in the country, and nowadays must religions can be practiced as long as they orderly register with the government. The fact that a big newspaper complains about this issue after many years of progress shows that they are trying to feed the ideas of religious bigots in America who claim persecution daily, while trying themselves to persecute the ideas that they don't agree with. I find this completely appalling.
I dunno, the South China Morning Post reported on China essentially phasing out Islam [1], and that's on top of their ethnic cleansing with the Uyghur.
> But the government’s heavy-handed efforts to obliterate several high-profile churches have been met with resistance among Christians....
> “If you see the police, national security or community workers greet them with gentleness,” Wen Hongbin, an elder at Xishuipang, told the congregation. “If they try to grab the microphone, I ask the brothers sitting in the front row to please stop them.” ...
> Independent churches like Early Rain, with more than 500 members, have attracted large followings in recent years, especially among white-collar workers seeking an escape from rampant materialism at the center of modern Chinese life.
> While sermons at state-sanctioned churches are often tightly scripted, independent churches boom with searing indictments of corrupt officials and rousing calls to protect the rights of the poor....
> “I saw injustices in society,” Mr. Gu said. “I saw that the government’s promotion of China as a just country that enforces laws in a civilized manner was all a lie.”
> Worried for his own safety, Mr. Gu recently closed his business, hoping to avoid government scrutiny. He said he has grown fearful as he has watched the police arrest his friends.
These people are much braver than I am, and I wish them peace and strength to overcome these trials.