Current and former presidents of the "Family" Research Council. A bigotted anti-gay lobbying organization designed as a hate group by the SPLC.

I have posted numerous article about the Chinese Government's ferocious attacks on theists.

And the articles come from a variety of sources.

Last edited Sat May 4, 2019, 03:14 PM - Edit history (1)

British Christians sold opium to the Chinese in the 19th century. When many became addicted, and China protested, the British attacked and killed them. In the two Opium Wars, 1839-60.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government commission, the first of its kind in the world, dedicated to defending the universal right to freedom of religion or belief abroad. USCIRF reviews the facts and circumstances of religious freedom violations and makes policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress. USCIRF Commissioners are appointed by the President and the Congressional leadership of both political parties.

https://www.uscirf.gov/about-uscirf

Perkins and Bauer are some of the commissioners.

Disgusting to have that bullshit org promoted here on DU.

What is it that confuses you?

Are you aware that the subject group is a Government organization?

Why do that? Nobody is confused here.

And others have the right to read the comments.

That appears to be the principle that is in operation here. There are three "You seem confused" posts just in this thread.

religious groups with respect, right? We know that. You've told us again and again, even though we knew that all along. That, however, has nothing to do with anything but China. We agree. China should do better in its handling of religious minorities. OK. No problem.

But, that has nothing whatsoever to do with things like sexual child abuse by religious leaders. Nothing at all. You keep trying to whatabout that, but it's irrelevant to anything but discussions of China. There's no reason to bring it up in a thread about problems within a particular church or denomination. They are not related.

And what it says about the leaders.

And in spite of your opinion, the Religion Group is not restricted to posts about abusive clergy. If you want to have such a restricted Group, I suggest that you petition the Administrators.

You just keep right on doing what you do...

But continue with your own pattern as well.

I'm very rarely confused, and almost never when I'm on Du.

Do tell. Are you implying that I'm somehow mentally incompetent? I'm certaintly not, I assure you.

no further comment is required.

Meanwhile anyone who may have been “confused” about the motivation need only to read the confession.

Someone certainly is.

I asked a question. It was not an assertion.

And you use the term gaslighting incorrectly here.

But you are free to have your opinion.

then Major Nikon are correct since we could.

You are still free to have it, no matter how wrong it may be. I guess you give up again.

When someone continuously alleges everyone else around them is "confused", you can be reasonably certain they are engaging in gaslighting. When they then contradict obvious facts and attempt to create a false reality, you can be certain of it.

we can make assumptions.

and your behavior is abhorrent.

When one continues to insist their nonsense is correct despite evidence to the contrary and everyone else is wrong, then it becomes something else.

It's either abhorrent or just garden variety childishness. Coming from an adult I'm not sure which is worse.

He got comments, but he choose to not participate in the discussion. He actually threw out ad homenins, calling people confused.

The closest you get to an argument is an endless stream of fallacies followed by gaslighting in a lame attempt to convince someone the fallacies offered are actually somehow real arguments.

At best. Glossing over a rich and theologically different culture by just saying they are "atheist" and whitewashing their actual spiritual background. Like why isn't he going on about the atheists in Myanmar ethnically cleansing Muslims? Because those atheists are Buddhists, and that's harder to spin his way. But a culture most are ignorant about because they don't follow the western trio? under the bus they go!

Hmmm... Isn't there a word that describes that?

...by correctly pointing out the RCC's culture of child rape. Such sins require a "counterpoint".

There is depth and history to the issues in china. With Rome, it's literally just a worldwide cover-up of child-rape.

As someone once said, raping children is universal. The difference is other organizations that engaged in covering up child rape were forced to either change their policies or cease to exist. In the case of the RCC they can just go on with their culture of child rape because they have millions of members that will distract, obsfucate, excuse, and lobby against reform. Thanks to the efforts of the child rape apologists, they also have millions more that will keep filling the collection plates making real reform unnecessary.

I will respond.

Funny how some few cannot address the actual post, and prefer to divert.

Just not in the manner you were expecting.

Interesting how, when the oppression is committed by atheists, a certain few always attack the motivation of the poster rather than admit that oppression is a human behavior unrelated to religion or anything but a desire to dominate others.

That's the opinion of literally NO ONE in this group.

Why do you behave like this? Why can't you just be decent and tell the truth?

So what about the behavior of these repressive regimes?

Most of them are theistic.

Typical.

Sure would be nice if you could help improve things instead of constantly insulting and attacking.

Would Jesus approve of your behavior?

I'm not sure he was quoted as approving others doing so, though. I suppose some liken themselves to Jesus, and take that liberty, however. Of course, there's no way of knowing whether Jesus said any of that stuff, or even whether he existed or not.

Supply-side Jesus for the Republicans.

Violent, angry Jesus of the temple for the vengeful.

Judgmental, vindictive Jesus of parables and cursed fig trees for the crusaders.

And on and on.

Interesting.

Did the inclusion of China make this a difficult subject to address?

They crack down on anyone who presents a threat to the state, regardless of their religious beliefs, hairstyle, sex, gender, number of fingers, or whether they have an appendix. This is a FACT, but instead you try to falsely frame it as China oppressing only theists.

I find it fascinating though that your primary concern when posting about China - because you CONSTANTLY comment about this - is your intense need to feel like this is a sore spot for atheists. There is literally not one atheist here I've seen who is denying the oppression that happens in China - every single one has simply asked you what it has to do with atheism. So far, you have been unable to answer. Instead, you admit that mentioning China at every possible opportunity is your "counterpoint" to the outrageous and ongoing sex abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church , and you push a narrative that somehow the topic of China makes atheists here uncomfortable.

You believe what you need to believe, g. But be aware that you simply continue to marginalize yourself and prove why you aren't here for any actual dialog.

Perhaps if you could show how your religion makes you a better person, instead of a meaner and more vindictive person? Could you show that? Show us how you think Jesus would want you to behave.

Expected at this point.

Here, I'll repeat my comment for you without the reference to your behavior:

Thus the focus by me, in this group, on oppression concerning religion.

And my own views is that, for some few, this focus on a group of atheists who control the Chinese Government causes some cognitive dissonance.

What annoys people here is your constant misframing, your gaslighting, your use of whataboutism, your hypocrisy, and your need to judge others and dispense "eye for an eye" justice. As you've admitted, you don't like people talking about religion-linked sex abuse scandals, and so you think that by posting about China you're engaging in some FOX News style "fair and balanced" coverage.

But I see that you are unable to acknowledge the facts I posted (yet again), so your bias is clear and your agenda exposed.

China persecutes theists AND atheists. A fact you can't acknowledge, because it destroys your position.

Again, expected.

Here's a pro tip: stop behaving like that, and I won't be able to anymore.

The RCC's culture of child rape requires a "counterpoint". Whataboutists gonna whatabout.

He aimed several points at you and your actions, but he never attacked you instead of your arguments/actions.

There were no flat out insults.

It's almost as if they are trying to invent scenarios in which they are being attacked and anyone who doesn't see it must be "confused".

Or desperate.

China is mad at religion, partly because 1) British Christian traders sold opium to the Chinese. 2) When many Chinese became addicted, and 3) the Chinese objected, the British killed them. In the two Opium Wars, 1839-60.

It is 4) estimated that before all that, China had the largest economy in the world. When it was over, its economy had been reduced by half.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

Many of these countries are places where only one religion is tolerated.

The abuses by Christianity, in China, were not extraordinarily abusive by the standards of the 19th and 20th centuries. And the era when opiods were first legal even in the west. Still? Today those abuses are considered grave enough, that most Americans, Christians today cannot face or acknowledge them.

It is to their credit and generosity though, that when Trump proposed restrictions on their exports, the Chinese, it was said, most readily and generously agreed to curtail exports of say, oxycontyn.

Generously, these atheists were not vindictive. Though they were taking precautions to prevent further abuses.

We need ALL Christians to finally step forward and confess, finally take responsibility for, and finally face, their specific sins.

The only reason China is mentioned at all is because the RCC's culture of child rape needs a "counterpoint".

Like the senator who put a chicken at the chair Barr would've been sitting at last week. When he chickened out, and didn't show.

Too many Christians run away from evidence of their bad deeds. And decline to answer objections ...or even acknowledge them. Even look at them.

It's a kind of going into Denial, or a "blackout.". Something they just can't face. If they don't look at it closely, they won't have a clear memory of it. So they can forget/repress it forever, they think.

What I didn't know is that anything any religionist does that's bad is attributed to "human behavior", even when organized religion encourages and/or enables the behavior. However, anything any religionist does that's good is due to religion.

Kinda funny how that works, but there you have it.

Researching these subjects suggests a kind of infantilism, that makes it harder to face sins.

Some ethics encourage that. If you sin, but aren't adult enough to face it or understand it, then you are to be forgiven. Since you "know not what you do."

Which encourages a kind of false, willful and therefore culpable blindness or ignorance.

To be sure, educated people know that Ethics and Life are a vast and much-contended field of study. And few things are certain. But the problems and sins of the Churches are so vast, that today, in its case, we should remove the benefit of the doubt for, especially, the churches.

(By the way? Accept as genuine today, only the words of "Bretton Garcia," two words, with caps.... Of course. I alone am perfect.)

Religionists, and especially Christians like to point out the golden rule in their book. So yeah, that's not a bad one, but you'll find a version of it in pretty much any system of ethics whether religious or secular. In their book you'll also find a requirement to take disobedient children to the town elders for a ritual stoning to death.

... began to take over China. So Catholicism was implicated.

So at least on some level you can understand why they don't have a high level of trust for Christianity.

Last edited Sun May 5, 2019, 07:11 AM - Edit history (1)

1) Attempts by partly religious, Christian forces to take over China went on until as recently as 1949.

2) China also has continued to have a lot more immediate trouble with specifically Islam, than America did. Because it is geographically much, much closer to the centers of militant and sometimes nuclear-armed Islam, it has always been at risk for Muslim incursions on the scale of a hundred thousand "911"s.

You'd think it would be hard to top religions going into a country, addicting it to opium, and then killing those who resisted. But in a nuclear age, it is possible for religions to do far worse than even that.

That's why the founders of America very firmly separated their new state, from religion. A separation that came far later to the rest of the world however.

..

Marx by the way, thought that religion itself was kind of opium: "religion is the opiod of the masses." The theory is probably that religion in part tells us optimistic fairy tales, makes false promises of heaven, to make people feel better. So they won't rebel against their exploitative leaders.

So the connection between selling opium and peddling religion, is closer than some might think.

China has 4 times the population of the US with roughly the same land mass. The government still mostly owns and controls the means of production, which means the government has a significant say in where you live and where you work. As you point out, they also aren't geographically isolated from their enemies in the way the US is. Despite these challenges, China manages to keep it's people from starving and does a better job of keeping them out of poverty than the US.

But has managed to help its poor very systematically. While preserving itself from further foreign, Christian and Muslim assaults.

It has faced an even tougher religious threat than America. And has reached therefore for tougher restraints on religious aggressors.

exterminated the religions and cultures of the indigenous peoples they found here, along with committing genocide against those same peoples. This is the legacy of European Christianity around the world. Christianity has always intended to replace all other religions, and has often used force and genocide to further that goal. The same process has occurred in many places, with mixed success on the Christian's part.

It's no wonder that China, Japan, and other Eastern Asian and some Pacific cultures rejected Christianity and are still doing so, as best they can. Both China and Japan have been largely successful in keeping foreign religions from destroying their ancient culture. Other nations, smaller in size and population, have not fared as well, but have reasserted their independence in more recent decades.

When the missionaries arrive, indigenous peoples are at risk of extermination or enslavement. That is the lesson of Christianity. The best defense is to send them away or kill them on arrival.

An interesting perspective: viewing China as almost an indigenous population defending itself from foreign religious imperialism.

Roughly matches what I've heard, inferring from some Chinese themselves.

in the United States was part of our government policies explicitly up to the 1970s. It remains an implicit policy.

And studied and worked with and for Indians on some well-known legal cases.

I studied and opposed the destruction of their traditional cultures. But I also supported them when they wanted to integrate into higher education, and higher-paying jobs.

It was a delicate balance. But I always tried to help them in whatever culture they chose. Except, in the southwest, Catholicism.

And did not give them even Freedom of Religion, culture.

In response to that, some of my ancestors founded/(and others fought?) the United States of America. Which in part at least attempted to rectify that sort of oppression. By setting up 1) "freedom of religion." While simultaneously 2) strongly making sure that no religions would control our secular government.

My philosophy has followed that. Allowing freedom of religion. But making sure no religion controlled our country. Especially, violent religion.

When working with Indians, I encouraged them to follow their traditional culture, religions, if they wanted. But I wanted to makes sure no religion totally dominated them, or our government.

China is in a similar position. In the 19th century, it had been all but colonized by Christian soldiers. And it has therefore been attempting to make sure that militant religion - like much of Islam - does not again become a problem. As it has been in America, in the Middle East, and in the Far East.

is oppression. And trying to equate Islam with terror is popular among autocrats.

That seems like a pretty pretty view. A little over idealistic, head in sand

there is an ongoing low level separatist insurrection in the region (Xinjiang) backed by wahabbi jihadists organizations.

This doesn’t justify the mass detentions, but it is a gross and intentional mischaracterization to claim that China is simply suppressing Islam.

And close to Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan.

All listed by Guil's own source as oppressive Muslim areas. And, as Turkic, connected all the way down thru Turkmenistan, to Turkey, Iraq, Syria.
Also listed as oppressive Muslim areas.

In particular, nuclear-armed Pakistan would be a worry. Not to mention Afghanistan. Which gave Americans a lot of problems.

Having lived in Turkish territories myself, I know that many Turkish Muslims are perfectly good people. But I personally don't blame China for being very, very anxious about its Muslim regions directly connected to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Including praying and fasting.

As to the insurrection, is that not legitimate in the face of Chinese oppression in an area that is mainly non-Chinese?

being treated differently than other religions in China. Religious organizations that do not threaten the interests of the state are left alone. Those that do are repressed, frequently in reprehensible ways.

The Chinese Government is attempting to control every aspect of theism.

Your attempt at normalizing the oppressive behavior fails.

Religious organizations that do not pose a threat to the authority of the state are left alone. Religious organizations that do pose a threat, even if they are non-theistic, like Falun Gong, are repressed. Actually any organization in China that presents any threat to the regime is going to get repressed. It isn’t about religion, or theism, it is about an authoritarian regime determined to remain in control.

Significant.

It's an issue. Of course, some Christian groups, as well, have been associated with violence, recently and historically. Even some Hindu groups have been so associated with violence.

As have political groups not connected to religion. Violence seems to be a common denominator for human societies, doesn't it?

In Turkey, Turkish Muslims were not so violent at all. But move over to say, ISIS....

In particular, go to Afghanistan - close to western China, which we are talking about - and you've got lots of angry well-armed Muslims.

So yup, 1) Muslims overall, like any group, include violent folks. And 2) for that matter? Some of the most violent are, precisely, right next to the part of China we're looking at.

There are many human behaviors that, while having some evolutionary utility, can be toxic.

You want to talk about them?

he probably doesn't want to talk about them. I'm not sure how much he knows about China, either, though. If it's not in the Guardian, it's not news, I guess. It's the atheists, see. They're bad, you understand, right?

That's how religions control people; in part by keeping them faithful; by keeping them from finding out where their religion did not work.

In this case Guil lists, but does not adequately note that, overwhelmingly, 1) the very discriminatory countries are very religious. Or 2) were victims of very restrictive religions, earlier in their history.

An interesting attempt at excusing what the Chinese Government is doing.

Reeducation is gentler than that.

is an attempt at normalizing and excusing oppression.

Classic victim blaming.

In Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan/India, or the Muslim capital Saudi Arabia, or Yemen, or China?

And these tactics are common on the right as well.

Inability to face your own sins

An inability to recognize the behavior on your part?

The point is your presentation of the situation—that this is a case of the Chinese government oppressing Muslims because they're theists—is demonstrably incorrect. They're oppressing Muslims because of the history of violent separatist movements in the region. End. Of. Story.

If the Chinese government was purely motivated by a philosophical objection to theism, they would have just banned religion thirty or forty years ago. And yet they didn't. Strange.

The Chinese authoritarians are willing to allow the pretense of religious freedom.

religious organization is challenging the authority of the state, as it does in Tibet.

China is an authoritarian regime. The regime does not tolerate any threats to its authority.

It is not however repressing religious practices in general.

But you already knew that.

Looking even at Gil's source, Perkins and the USCIRF? Note that even it lists chiefly, among its major oppressors of religion, nine or ten Muslim countries.

So 1) the main oppressors of religion ... are other religious countries; oppressing their religious competitors.

And 2) furthermore, what do you know? From Gil's own cited article, we find that at least nine or so of the worst oppressors of religion... are essentially all the often Muslim, sometimes terrorist militarist countries SURROUNDING, bordering ...CHINA.

These are countries that have often caused problems for Americans, too. Including:

A) Afghanistan.
B) Iraq
C) Pakistan
D) Syria
E) Tajikistan
F) Turkey
G) Uzbekistan
H) Turkmenistan
I) Uzbekistan

In addition to the often suppressive and militaristic Muslim countries - which surround China - Gil's article also mentions J) Saudi Arabia of course. Which, as the home of Mohammed, is the spiritual capital of Islam. And a great friend of Donald Trump. And partial to the idea of killing American/Saudi liberal journalists.

So in sum? Is 1) notoriously hard to know what is going on in the interior of China, and its own local Muslim communitues However?

It is 2) easy to find a long and terrible history of religions like Christianity, outrageously exploiting and attacking China. And it is 3) easy to discover that China is surrounded by very Muslim countries; most or all (according to Gil's own source), with a habit of oppreesing, attacking, religions contrary to their own.

And, 4) we add, those Muslim countries have a habit of attacking anyone who does not agree with their own Muslim religion; including atheists.

When the Russians and then Chinese attempted to set up atheist states in 1917 and then c. 1946, they were attacked by religious forces. And to this day, religions remain a major threat. To say, rational America. And? To China.

Particularly worrying to China is, say, nuclear-armed Pakistan. Which broke away from Hindu India in a violent revolution, not so long ago.

China is no doubt concerned about ties between its own Muslim communities, and their very violent and famous intolerant religious brothers. Who surround China. And who often murderously oppose atheism.

And we add, 5) the misdeeds of Muslim oppressors vastly exceeded reeducation. Their misdeeds included killing of millions of "heretics" or religious competitors. In terrorism, murders, and countless religious wars.

Probably everyone in this thread should read your post.