Separation of Church & State

PDN

Part of my work that I particularly enjoy involves ministering among the persecuted church, both in Islamic countries and also in China.

For example, in China I visit the "Underground Church" which worships illegally. I have friends there who have been tortured - for example young ladies whose fingernails and toenails were ripped out with pliers. Another young lady was held in a labour camp and, in order to humiliate her, forced to kneel and eat dung and drink urine while the other inmates watched. She told me that afterwards she felt God speaking to her and saying, "Today you have celebrated holy communion with me."

Sometimes we go to different areas and graduate students from illegal Bible Schools. I have a contact who has an incredible talent for sensing when members of the PBS (security police) are following. He drives around until we've lost our 'tail', then takes us to the Bible Schools. Some of the students we have graduated have already been arrested and 'evaporated' (they disappear, never to be seen again). Despite this, the number of underground Christians in China has increased to 100,000,000 - approximately 10% of the population.

My reason for sharing this is that the Chinese government is not against religion per se. For example, there is a government approved church organisation - The Three-Self Patriotic Movement. This movement operates under government control, with clergy appointed by the State and churches forbidden to teach on subjects deemed inappropriate by the authorities. So, the reason so many Christians are persecuted is because they insist on belonging to churches that are not controlled by the State (this also applies to some non-Christian religious groups such as Falung Gong).

Communist China, then, is yet another example of the evil that occurs when Church and State are not separated. It is a bad thing for the Church to be controlled by the State, and it is equally bad for the State to be controlled by the Church. Human nature is so warped and twisted that any religious movement that becomes entwined with the State becomes a sick parody of its former self.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

My reason for sharing this is that the Chinese government is not against religion per se. For example, there is a government approved church organisation - The Three-Self Patriotic Movement. This movement operates under government control, with clergy appointed by the State and churches forbidden to teach on subjects deemed inappropriate by the authorities. So, the reason so many Christians are persecuted is because they insist on belonging to churches that are not controlled by the State (this also applies to some non-Christian religious groups such as Falung Gong).

Well, that makes a refreshing change from the claim that China is atheistic!

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, that makes a refreshing change from the claim that China is atheistic!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Of course the Chinese government is officially atheistic. But they are prepared to tolerate certain religious expressions providing that the religious people involved are very submissive and do what they are told.

For example, I understand that Christians complaining when they get bashed is considered very reactionary.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Of course the Chinese government is officially atheistic. But they are prepared to tolerate certain religious expressions providing that the religious people involved are very submissive and do what they are told.

Well, of course, I didn't mean to deny you the right to make the claim. It would be like trying to stop any other urban legend.

PDN wrote:

For example, I understand that Christians complaining when they get bashed is considered very reactionary.

Well, since they're supposed to turn the other cheek, and use words of gentle reproof, I'd agree. It's not like we're burning you at the stake, after all.

cheekily,
Scofflaw

bonkey

Can church and state be truly seperated?

In a democratic nation, the choices of the voters will often be influenced along lines in accordance with their religious beliefs. Thus, the State is in many ways a reflection of the religious opinions of the majority.

In Ireland, there are already those who seem to think there is something to fear from having open borders, as it theoretically could allow a Muslim majority to form, which would result in sweeping changes once such a majority exercised its democratic rights.

Perhaps such people are only scaremongering, but their mindset seems to suggest that our notional seperation of church and state would show itself to be but an illusion were the demographics of the country ever to yield the majority to a different religion. It suggests that even such a "loose coupling" of church and state is only acceptable if you are in the religious majority*

*I accept that the religious majority may be a coalition, and may even include atheists and/or agnostics. The point I'm making is that if the system would cease to be acceptable were the religious majority other than what it is, then the system does not seperate church and state.

robindch

> Can church and state be truly seperated?

An interesting question and I would suggest that as long as organized religion exists, then it'll always seek to extend its control of the society it operates in, so that it can guarantee its own survival. So, no I don't believe that separation is ever completely possible. The only way out is for religion to die out like has happened in Sweden, Holland etc and is happening in Ireland today.

The chinese government knows that it's dealing with another organization which, like itself, demands absolute loyalty and the government can't and won't permit divided loyalties to exist. Hence its control of the official church and suppression of non-conformist groups like the Falun Gong. I also suspect that it's tacitly encouraging expansionist christianity, in order to neutralise any threat from an expansionist islam.

The chinese government's approach is certainly an interesting social experiment, but I can't help but think that it's limited embrace of religion is a worrying development.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Part of my work that I particularly enjoy involves ministering among the persecuted church, both in Islamic countries and also in China.

For example, in China I visit the "Underground Church" which worships illegally. I have friends there who have been tortured - for example young ladies whose fingernails and toenails were ripped out with pliers. Another young lady was held in a labour camp and, in order to humiliate her, forced to kneel and eat dung and drink urine while the other inmates watched. She told me that afterwards she felt God speaking to her and saying, "Today you have celebrated holy communion with me."

Sometimes we go to different areas and graduate students from illegal Bible Schools. I have a contact who has an incredible talent for sensing when members of the PBS (security police) are following. He drives around until we've lost our 'tail', then takes us to the Bible Schools. Some of the students we have graduated have already been arrested and 'evaporated' (they disappear, never to be seen again). Despite this, the number of underground Christians in China has increased to 100,000,000 - approximately 10% of the population.

Are all operations covert or do you go through any international legimate routes like the UN, human rights organisations, amnesty etc?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Are all operations covert or do you go through any international legimate routes like the UN, human rights organisations, amnesty etc?

No, all covert. The Chinese underground believers would have zero trust in such organisations.

philologos

I suppose there is a risk that you could be arrested for encouraging Christianity? Also, do you head out there yourself? If so you are incredibly brave, and your efforts will most certainly be honoured by God. Saddening that in some countries Christianity still can't be practiced freely. Saudi Arabia would be another example.

PDN

Jakkass wrote:

I suppose there is a risk that you could be arrested for encouraging Christianity? Also, do you head out there yourself? If so you are incredibly brave, and your efforts will most certainly be honoured by God. Saddening that in some countries Christianity still can't be practiced freely. Saudi Arabia would be another example.

Actually I'm not really brave at all. If they arrest me then they would just deport me since they're not going to risk a breach in diplomatic relations with a European trading partner. It is the Chinese believers who are incredibly brave, as they risk torture and even death. In one meeting I began to pray for their persecution to be lifted, but the Chinese pastor interrupted me and she said, "Please don't pray that. We don't want the persecution to stop. We're afraid that if our faith is made too easy we will become soft and compromising like the churches in the West." Ouch!

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

In one meeting I began to pray for their persecution to be lifted, but the Chinese pastor interrupted me and she said, "We're afraid that if our faith is made too easy we will become soft and compromising like the churches in the West." Ouch!

What would your own view be? Western Christian should suffer more or less than they currently do?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

What would your own view be? Western Christian should suffer more or less than they currently do?

Well, from a selfish perspective I'm not particularly fond of suffering. However, history has shown that Christianity grows, both numerically and spiritually, during times of persecution. As Tertullian wrote in the third century, semen est sanguis Christianorum, or "The blood [of the martyrs] is the seed of the Church".

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Well, from a selfish perspective I'm not particularly fond of suffering.

Is that all suffering or just yours?

However, history has shown that Christianity grows, both numerically and spiritually, during times of persecution. As Tertullian wrote in the third century, semen est sanguis Christianorum, or "The blood [of the martyrs] is the seed of the Church".

Do you favour a world of suffering and for increased Christianity then?

You are equivocating again.

BrianCalgary

Tim Robbins wrote:

Do you favour a world of suffering and for increased Christianity then?

You are equivocating again.

TIm you are equating Christianity with suffering. This is definite Christian bashing and you are on the verge of being banned.

Smarten up.

Show where any society that has operated on the principle of Christianity or any person that has operated on the same and has been violent?

The principle of the greatest commandments.

Zombrex

When people ask me do I think the State should support no religion I always reply "No, I think the State should support ALL religion"

The end result (a complete separation of church and state) is the same, but the philosophy is different.

That isn't to say that I'm pro-religion. I am anti-religion, I think religion is superstition nonsense where the bad far out ways the good. But I would also be very opposed to atheism beginning forced upon people. People should be allowed believe in what ever nonsense they want. It is up to others to convince them that it is harmful nonsense, not to force them to accept that.

The only fair way for the State to support all religions is to support no religion, because it would be impossible to support all of them equally.

But importantly the State should allow anyone to be a member of a religion that acts within the law as a private venture.

That is the problem with Communists countries like China. Communism is officially against religion in any form. The problem is that in a communist country there isn't really a "private" citizen. So the private beliefs and practices of a person fall down in second place after the interests of the State.

UU

Well, it's awful that Christians are persecuted in China but don't forget that Christian Churches persecuted others in Europe for long enough like atheists, pagans, muslims, gays, and many others. So really although I don't agree with what the Chinese government are doing, Christian groups aren't totally innocent either. But I'm sympathetic with them because no human being should undergo such harassment.

My views would be like Wicknight's. I don't think religious groups should get special priorities in any country. They should be allowed to be as long as they abide by the just and democratic laws of a country and don't deny one's human rights (or animal rights for that matter). I think religions should be treated the same as any other organisation. If they are fanatical, they should be banned. I think Scientology for example should be banned.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

People should be allowed believe in what ever nonsense they want.

Isn't that faith or belief, rather than religion?

UU wrote:

They should be allowed to be as long as they abide by the just and democratic laws of a country and don't deny one's human rights (or animal rights for that matter). I think religions should be treated the same as any other organisation. If they are fanatical, they should be banned.

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? Being fanatical about something is neither restricted to religious/belief-based organisations, nor necessarily does it involve non-abiding by the law, nor the denial of human rights.

Now...while I'd agree there may be other reasons for opposing a group such as Scientology, I don't believe fanaticism is one of them. To ban something because of that would be, in and of itself, a denial of human rights.

UU

bonkey wrote:

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? Being fanatical about something is neither restricted to religious/belief-based organisations, nor necessarily does it involve non-abiding by the law, nor the denial of human rights.

Now...while I'd agree there may be other reasons for opposing a group such as Scientology, I don't believe fanaticism is one of them. To ban something because of that would be, in and of itself, a denial of human rights.

Well the fanaticism I'm referring to would be for example, those Islamic groups in certain countries who preach hate speech, have links with terrorist organisations, deny human rights such as treating women like slaves, send death treaths, etc. Or in America, the fanatical Christian groups who gun down abortion doctors because they believe the unborn must be saved. Or Scientologists who brainwash others, take people's money, send death treaths... (Btw, i don't distinguish between cults and reigious organisations who are fanatical). By fanatical I mean extreme, non-law abiding groups who are a treath to the general public and to themselves. And that's not just religious organisations - any sort of fanatical, extreme organisation such as Nazi groups for example or the Ku Klux Klan.

I think what you may be referring to is observant groups who are quite religious. I don't agree with banning of course, somewhat observant groups such as strict Christian groups like Opus Dei or something once they abide by the democratic laws and human rights laws of the country and not by their own laws first.

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

Isn't that faith or belief, rather than religion?

Well I suppose it could be argued that religion is just a collection of people with a shared supernatural belief system

UU

Wicknight wrote:

Well I suppose it could be argued that religion is just a collection of people with a shared supernatural belief system

True.

robindch

Wicknight wrote:

...it could be argued that religion is just a collection of people with a shared supernatural belief system

I would suggest that a religion is what happens when a lot of people who believe they all believe the same thing, get together and choose to self-identify by, protect and propagate what they believe they believe.

The vague and obscurantist prose used by religious teachers is central to mystifying believers sufficiently that belief in a shared belief can arise.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote:

I would suggest that a religion is what happens when a lot of people who believe they all believe the same thing, get together and choose to self-identify by, protect and propagate what they believe they believe.

I don't think Jews try to propagate their views to non Jews only to their kids.
PDN, I was just wondering what happens to atheists or agnostics in China, are they persecuted as well, also do you think you could get one of your Chinese friends to log on for a discussion or someone who has found Christ through your missionary work, it would be very interesting?

Also say if you met someone in China was having doubt about Christianity and wanted to speak to a well informed atheist what would you do?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

I don't think Jews try to propagate their views to non Jews only to their kids.
PDN, I was just wondering what happens to atheists or agnostics in China, are they persecuted as well, also do you think you could get one of your Chinese friends to log on for a discussion or someone who has found Christ through your missionary work, it would be very interesting?

Also say if you met someone in China was having doubt about Christianity and wanted to speak to a well informed atheist what would you do?

Atheists or agnostics would not be persecuted for being such, or for practicing their belief (I'm not sure if that makes sense. Is there such a thing as a practising atheist?) Of course they may be persecuted for other reasons, like wanting democracy, just as Christians advocating democracy may be. Interestingly, I have been told that Islam is pretty well given a free run in China today. I tried to check this out with Wikipedia (not, I admit, the most reliable source of information in the world) and they seem to have more to say about Muslims being persecuted in the USA and Europe than in China.

I'm afraid that any Christian logging onto a board labelled 'Christianity' would be inviting the PBS to come and get him. Internet access is monitored in China. Even Google, who claim to "do no evil", allow the Government to filter their search results & Yahoo delivered the details of dissidents to the authorities. When I am in China I don't log on the internet at all, nor use my cellphone, when I am in the company of the underground church.

I think if anyone in China wanted to talk to a well-informed atheist that would be fairly easy. Atheism is taught as an academic subject in schools, so all they would have to do is speak to a teacher.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Atheists or agnostics would not be persecuted for being such, or for practicing their belief (I'm not sure if that makes sense. Is there such a thing as a practising atheist?) Of course they may be persecuted for other reasons, like wanting democracy, just as Christians advocating democracy may be. Interestingly, I have been told that Islam is pretty well given a free run in China today. I tried to check this out with Wikipedia (not, I admit, the most reliable source of information in the world) and they seem to have more to say about Muslims being persecuted in the USA and Europe than in China.

I'm afraid that any Christian logging onto a board labelled 'Christianity' would be inviting the PBS to come and get him. Internet access is monitored in China. Even Google, who claim to "do no evil", allow the Government to filter their search results & Yahoo delivered the details of dissidents to the authorities. When I am in China I don't log on the internet at all, nor use my cellphone, when I am in the company of the underground church.

I think if anyone in China wanted to talk to a well-informed atheist that would be fairly easy. Atheism is taught as an academic subject in schools, so all they would have to do is speak to a teacher.

Interesting. Do you see many of them reading Richard Dawkins? Do you have any past papers of the atheism exam, I would be interesting in testing myself?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Interesting. Do you see many of them reading Richard Dawkins? Do you have any past papers of the atheism exam, I would be interesting in testing myself?

I really am no expert on different kinds of atheists. I have a hard enough job keeping abreast of what Christians believe.

However, with tens of thousands of Chinese now living in Ireland it should be easy enough for you to find someone that could help you out.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

Interesting. Do you see many of them reading Richard Dawkins? Do you have any past papers of the atheism exam, I would be interesting in testing myself?

I'm not sure atheism is a subject in of itself in Chinese schools (of course I could be wrong, never been to China), the official school curriculum simply teaches that all religions are nonsense and that there is no gods.

I doubt though that Dawkins is used as a text book on this though, as Dawkin's work doesn't exactly support the Communist ideal. Mao and Marx are probably where the inspiration comes from.

The exam would probably be

Is there a God? Yes/No

Scofflaw

From here:

PRC - Religions:
Officially an atheist state
59% No religious association
20% Taoism and Confucianism
12% Atheist
6% Buddhist
2% Muslim
1% Christian

12% is low - the top atheist country is Sweden (41-85%, with a lot of uncertainty). Compare with the excellent table here.

China is not an atheist country. The state is atheist. Come to that, what does a state being atheist mean - particularly when the state tolerates certain religions but not others?

cordially,
Scofflaw

hairyheretic

Scofflaw wrote:

Come to that, what does a state being atheist mean

Isn't it obvious?

It logs onto internet forums and challenges christian states about their beliefs

philologos

Scofflaw wrote:

From here:

PRC - Religions:
Officially an atheist state
59% No religious association
20% Taoism and Confucianism
12% Atheist
6% Buddhist
2% Muslim
1% Christian

12% is low - the top atheist country is Sweden (41-85%, with a lot of uncertainty). Compare with the excellent table here.

China is not an atheist country. The state is atheist. Come to that, what does a state being atheist mean - particularly when the state tolerates certain religions but not others?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wikipedia wrote:

The majority of Albanians today are either Atheists or Agnostics. According to the official US Government Report [1]: "No reliable data were available on active participation in formal religious services, but estimates ranged from 25 to 40 percent.", thus leaving 60 to 75 percent of the population non-religious.[2][3]

Are you sure it's not Albania?

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

From here:

PRC - Religions:
Officially an atheist state
59% No religious association
20% Taoism and Confucianism
12% Atheist
6% Buddhist
2% Muslim
1% Christian

12% is low - the top atheist country is Sweden (41-85%, with a lot of uncertainty). Compare with the excellent table here.

China is not an atheist country. The state is atheist. Come to that, what does a state being atheist mean - particularly when the state tolerates certain religions but not others?

cordially,
Scofflaw

What does "no religious association" mean? Is that not atheist? Or those damn fence sitting agnostics?

If someone asked me what religion I would say I would say "no religion", I wouldn't say "atheist" because atheism isn't a religion. They mean pretty much the same thing

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

Are you sure it's not Albania?

Yes, I'm sure it's not Albania: according to Inglehart et al (2004)*, only 8% of those in Albania do not believe in God - which is quite a vital requirement for an atheist....figures for people that don't go to church represent something entirely different.

Virtually every Christian poster here seems to share the same misapprehension as to the nature of atheism. People who simply don't want to think about "spiritual matters" are not atheists. You could call them "materialists" if you like, since they don't think non-material things are worth thinking about - or you could call them "brutes", or "mundanes".

The "mundane" ethos of not bothering to think about these things, because they're not as important as investments, or sport, or soap opera, is currently the dominant social paradigm. It retains an outward appearance of religion, but only as a badge of allegiance and marker of social status. Many retain the prejudices of "their religion" without faith or understanding.

To such people, both the fervent believer and the fervent disbeliever are disturbances. The former is slightly more acceptable, since they at least come with a church and a social network - the latter are considered probably anti-social and untrustworthy.

You are obviously at liberty to continue calling such people "atheists", but since they are no more "atheists" than they are "Christians", but I hope that you will only do so in order to deliberately give offence in future - it is always a pity to insult people by accident.

cordially,
Scofflaw


*Inglehart, Ronald, Miguel Basanez, Jaime Diez-Medrano, Loek Halman, and Ruud Luijkx. 2004. Human Beliefs and Values: A Cross-Cultural Sourcebook Based on the 1999-2002 Value Surveys. Beunos Aires, Argentina: Siglo Veintiuno Editores.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

What does "no religious association" mean? Is that not atheist? Or those damn fence sitting agnostics?

No, it's what our friends in the US call "unchurched" - meaning that they don't belong to any congregation, or formally espouse a particular creed/sect.

Wicknight wrote:

If someone asked me what religion I would say I would say "no religion", I wouldn't say "atheist" because atheism isn't a religion. They mean pretty much the same thing

A total syllogistic error. An atheist may answer "no religion", but answering "no religion" does not necessarily indicate an atheist - so they certainly do not "mean pretty much the same thing" (see post above). In addition, other surveys are not the CSO Census. The matter is treated at some length here: Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns.

cordially,
Scofflaw