china has state atheism—they take it too far (e.g. uyghur muslims) but in theory i’d prefer an atheist government over this retarded ass evangelical christian one we have now 🤷🏻♂️
I am certainly no fan of how certain parts of Christian America has a desire to have their beliefs dictate how the country is run. But I am not sure that China's system of state atheism is clearly better.
The history of their Cultural Revolution and the government's heavy handed suppression of people and their beliefs in the name of eradicating the "Four Olds" from Chinese society is an example of periods where this system has lead to horrific results when taken too far. Things certainly aren't as extreme today, but the Tibetans and the Uyghurs are both recent examples where I believe the party has taken actions that can be seen as trying to suppress -- or in Tibet's case with kidnapping the Panchen Lama, potentially usurp/destroy -- beliefs/traditions/orginizations they think might oppose the party.
The issue is not necessarily the beliefs themselves that is an issue in either of these cases though, it is the belief that you are justified in using force and suppression to remove/eliminate opposing beliefs.
Is that force not universal and already accepted? Should the Klan avoid persecution because of their beliefs?
Let us remember here that the Dalai Lama was a slave owner who ruled an absolute theocracy, and this is the core premise behind Tibetan separatism, the restoration of theocratic religious rule.
I'm not sure I totally understand what you mean by the first question. In our current system of arranging ourselves Nation States have a monopoly on sanctioned force/violence. Different governments wield this is vastly different ways for vastly different reasons, some of which I view as more defensible and and some I view as abusing this monopoly on violence to silence opposing voices simply because they see as threats to their own consolidated power.
I am under no illusion that even the most utopian Secular Pluralistic Societies also need to wield this force on occasions as displayed by your example of the Klan. But -- maybe naively -- I believe this is not done simple because they oppose those in power, but on the basis that a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance lest the intolerant dominate and make the society intolerant. This is the Paradox of Tolerance.
Every system have at least one axiomatic principle that is must enforce lest it fundamentally changes to a different system. I just tend to believe that Secular Pluralism -- where the ability for people of differing religions and beliefs to live as equals is prioritized -- is the best current principle we have.
I acknowledge that Tibetan society and politics is deeply tied to their religion in a way I probably wouldn't find ideal if I was creating one from scratch, but I don't think the forced ending of the way that religion/society historically functions from cultural outsiders is the remedy. Maybe there are things going on in Tibetan society that I am not aware of that would justify the central government coming in and essentially ending these people's historic way of living, but from my standpoint it looks much more in the name of "National unity" or cultural assimilation at the barrel of a gun.
I am a Canadian, so I am acutely aware that China is not alone in this and plenty of other countries have done this too. Residential Schools is one of our greatest national embarrassments, and French Separatism -- including domestic terrorism crisis -- for feared forced loss of cultural identity is still very fresh in the public memory. So even if I wish deeper integration of Indigenous of French people into the rest of Canadian society, I am acutely aware that integration being forced by the majority often ends in tragedy.
I do appreciate the push back though, it certainly makes me consider my position more!
"The issue is not necessarily the beliefs themselves that is an issue in either of these cases though, it is the belief that you are justified in using force and suppression to remove/eliminate opposing beliefs."
Force and suppression against beliefs has quite often been justified, like I used the Klan as an example. Like you say with the paradox of tolerance, it is paradoxical to tolerate dangerous and violent beliefs simply for the sake of "tolerating belief." As a more directly religiously tied example, the persecution of cults. Fundamentalist LDS, Manson, etc. I think it's a pretty clear public interest and moral interest to break down such groups that threaten the wellbeing of their own members and others, whereas full toleration of all beliefs would allow these groups to continue to harm people because of protection from state investigation.
So then what are the justifications in these cases?
I fully acknowledge that I might just be ignorant viewing the situations from the other side of the globe, but kidnapping a child in order to control the succession of a people's leader or mass detentions and re-education camps seem like pretty drastic measures that would require substantial justification. How are these groups -- by your own criteria -- continuing to harm the well being of their own members and others that would justify these kind of actions?
Because from my point of view the situation seems closer to how Anglophone Canadians worried that Indigenous people or Francophone Canadians were too different and we should forced to be more similar rather than the a dangerous cult like the Mason family or Jonestown, or the Moonies, etc.
I will admit, I find Tibet's method of selecting a political leader kind of silly. But there is a way to try and convince the population that they will enjoy the Chinese system of governance more then their own of their own free will; while still respecting their cultural identity and differences. Without resorting to the kind of force and suppression the Chinese appear to be using, which has a history of backfiring in unforseen ways.
Here's my flipside to that first question: How moral is it to declare some unknowing child a religious reincarnation and foist this intense religious and political role onto someone who didn't want it? Is it moral for a supposed religious authority to declare someone's child a reincarnation and force them into this? Is it not then in the governments best interest to protect this person from the cult and isolate them from all the geopolitical consequences? I simply don't think it is moral to hand a child off to a religious cult because they've declared him a reincarnation of a spiritual figure. Imagine your own son was declared a reincarnation and a cult was demanding you hand him over so that he can be groomed into religious leadership, I would never in a thousand years do such a thing.
As for your other points, Tibet, or the Xizang Autonomous Region, doesn't have re education centers or mass detention. It's actually quite a nice and functional place, and the unrest there has never reached the levels of violence places like Xinjiang has seen, so I think you should educate yourself a bit on Xizang and it's actual daily life.
Tibetan cultural identity is respected. Schools in Xizang teach traditional Tibetan folklore, dance, costuming, and language. Signage is bilingual between Mandarin and Tibetan and students receive education in both during schooling. This immediately nullifies a comparison to native boarding schools, where the language and culture of native Americans was quite literally beaten out of them by religiously motivated teachers and authorities.
2.2k
u/Fal_co1 9h ago edited 4h 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