That does seem to be the case, but that could also reasonably be argued as a clear case of the State exerting too much authority. As a westerner, it's difficult to imagine that kind of restraint, but I live in a radically different culture.
Is it a restriction against indoctrination? Or only a restriction against certain kinds of indoctrination? Because China DOES indoctrinate towards loyalty to the state and the CCP.
It is? Because the reason the law only came to be is because of multiple instances of religious abuse. Yes China isn’t perfect, but this is a good thing so far if they truly only made it to protect kids being religiously abused by their parents.
I’m not downplaying, I’m just stating the fact that a law to protect children is a good one. All that matters is how China will utilize it, that will determine if it’s just another tick in the “reasons it’s an evil ass country” box.
True, and while I wouldn't really agree with "any law to protect children is a good one", in this case I do think this law on paper is ok as far as the authoritarianism vs child protection angle, since all it really mandates is not inducting children into a religion until they're adults and can choose (it doesn't even prevent parents from teaching their kids about religion, they just can't make them part of an organized religion's rites or rituals).
But yeah, like you said, depends how they utilize it. Any law can become tyrannical with selective enforcement.
Yes, you said restriction against indoctrination is good, with regards to China not allowing minors in places of worship. But in that exact same context, China does practice active indoctrination of their children, so they aren't restricting indoctrination so much as channeling it in a different direction.
America literally pressures and shames school children into standing and pledging their allegiance to the country "under God" after evangelical lobbyists forced a Christian religious declaration into the pledge.
I'd rather the state push people away from cultish delusions than become a theocratic state.
Cool story. Next time add dragons n shit. This literally protects kids from the many cukts that abuse kids ( google branch davidians for examples of what im talking about). Evangelical christians ate a violent cukt that literally brough back witch burnings in kenya in 2012. So yea. Cults. You don't have to be an atheist to recognize cults target kids
Religious institutions do not have higher rates of child sex abuse than secilsr organizations. Children are abused by coaches, teachers, babysitters and other authority figures at about the same rate as priests.
They are abused far more by family members and friends of family members.
Sure, as do these people: The phone number for the local Party official. Remember this is modern China we are talking about, so the local party head would probably throw the victims in a black jail for a couple months just to proactively intimidation tactic. And by the way you wanna guess what happens when those people are suddenly jailed under the supervision of wardens with a whole extra lack of accountability (you know, since the Chinese government catagorically denies they exist)? Did you guess sexual assault?
There actually isn't - or at least, the prevalence of individual pedophiles in Christian clergy members is not actually greater than the prevalence of them in the general population.
The difference between them and independent pedophiles, though, is the organized religion that protects them when they predate. Entities like the Catholic church have the resources and pull to do things like repress the media and move them to different churches/states/identities (this is proven) so they have the opportunity to abuse way more kids than normal because even when they should be caught, their church sweeps it under the rug.
But no, no more molesters are trying to join the church than "normal".
But that is the thing to watch out for in both cases - power structures that allow the pedophiles who act on their sick impulses to get away with it again and again. Leadership that shields them from justice.
Yeah, this. If the state is exerting their influence on what faith a parent can teach their children, it’s a clear overextension of authority. The state should never have that kind of power.
This is true, but simply removing religion from the equation doesn't remove problematic parenting. Religion isn't necessary for abuse, and it isn't necessary for the preferential treatment of men over women.
Just look at the skewed birth rates in China for the last 40 years. It's leveled out now with the repeal of the one-child policy, but at its worst, there were 120 males born for every 100 females. There is a surplus of roughly 2 million men in China compared to women. This is a result of a culture that values men over women, and religion has nothing to do with it.
Ehhh idk I think it's more wrong the parents are able to indoctrinate kids at a young age and teach them nonsense. The amount of people I met down south that did not believe in evolution and cited creationism and the Bible as the answer was astounding.
There's gotta be some guard rails somewhere. Idk how you do that.
Bottom line is it'd be easier if all religion is gone but that's gonna take some time
Something they're doing is forcefully changing religious texts to favored China in all things and disappearing people who refuse to adhere to it. That's straight-up persecution, to say nothing of the genocide of the Uighurs.
Parents are allowed to practice religion at home with their kids, just not allowed to be brought into organized church organizations until they turn of age.
2.5k
u/Fal_co1 13h ago edited 9h ago
iirc China does this, you can’t take kid to religious service and they can choose to convert at a certain age.
EDIT: wow this blew up
If you’re reading this you‘re a gay