“Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”
(Taken from the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1786)
On Monday the US Department of State issued its annual report on International Religious Freedom; a report that it has written for the last 13 years despite never being asked to. It’s like an over-zealous school kid who assigns himself extra homework and then boasts about how smart he is, and all the while his classmates collectively wish he would just fuck the fuck off.
The report for 2011 states that “too many people live under governments that abuse or restrict freedom of religion” and blacklists China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Eritrea as “chronic violators” of religious freedom. The China section reads as follows:
There was a marked deterioration during 2011 in the government’s respect for and protection of religious freedom in China. In the Tibetan Autonomous Region and other Tibetan areas, this included increased restrictions on religious practice, especially in Tibetan Buddhist monasteries and nunneries. Official interference in the practice of these religious traditions exacerbated grievances and contributed to at least 12 self-immolations by Tibetans in 2011. The repression tightened in the lead-up to and during politically and religiously sensitive anniversaries and events…
China only allows groups belonging to one of the five state-sanctioned “patriotic religious associations” (Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Protestant) to register with the government and legally hold worship services. Other religious groups, such as Protestant groups unaffiliated with the official patriotic religious association or Catholics professing loyalty to the Vatican, are not permitted to register as legal entities. Proselytizing in public or unregistered places of worship is not permitted. Some religious and spiritual groups are outlawed.
Tibetan Buddhists in China are not free to venerate the Dalai Lama and encounter severe government interference in religious practice. The government continued to severely repress Muslims living in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region and other parts of China. Crackdowns on Christian house churches, such as the Shouwang church in Beijing, continued. Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members are required to be atheists and are generally discouraged from participating in religious activities.
Unsurprisingly, China’s reaction to the report has been somewhat angry. An article posted on Xinhua’s English language website accuses the report of being “nothing but a political tool used by the U.S. government to exert pressure on other countries, mostly deemed as its rivals”, and takes exception to the way in which the U.S. continually imposes “its own standards of religious policies, regardless of the differences in history, cultural tradition, and economic and political realities.” [insert slow clap of approval here]
The article could have stopped there and still achieved its purpose, but it then goes on to defend China against the charges levelled against it. In essence, it argues that China only clamps down on extremist groups that use religion as a cloak for their political motivations, and that this does not equate to abuse of religious freedom. I have to say that while I was in China I got no sense that religious freedom was restricted. The contract I signed stated that I must not use my teaching position as a platform from which to preach any political or religious views, but I think this should be the rule in all countries. Whenever I visited a temple; whether Buddhist, Taoist, or Confucian; I always saw dozens of people lighting incense and praying at the feet of bronze statues and shrines, and nobody ever came to lock them up. I even saw several active Christian churches, some of which dated back to European occupation in the 19th century, and again, not a beating or arrest in sight.
Frankly, I don’t think the Chinese government could care less about people’s individual religious beliefs. What they are concerned about is any mass organisation that could threaten the authority of one party rule. Suppressing political freedom may not be any better than suppressing religious freedom, but it is an important distinction nonetheless, and one that the 2011 Report on International Religious Freedom seems to have completely overlooked.
The report ends with a conclusion which states that despite the abuses of religious freedom listed above, other countries have shown that positive change is possible. Countries on that list include Turkey, Ukraine, France, and oh, what a surprise, the United States. However, rather than explaining what the U.S. has done to improve religious freedom domestically, it merely details the interventions it has made in countries such as Egypt, Burma, and Iraq. The implication is that religious freedom in the United States is not even an issue, and I think it is the arrogance of this belief that countries like China object to the most.
I would love it if China started releasing annual reports on the state of religious freedom in the U.S. They could survey Muslims in America and ask them how they feel about being profiled at airports, or seeing bumper stickers that say “Everything I need to know about Islam I learned on 9/11″. They could ask homosexuals how they feel about being told they’re not allowed to marry the person they love because a 2000 year-old book says so. They could ask impregnated rape victims how they feel about Republican Rick Santorum telling them that they should keep their baby because it is a “gift from God”. They could ask young women how they feel about some extremist religious groups trying to take away their right to practice safe sex. They could ask non-creationists how they feel about their children’s right to receive an education based on reason being under constant threat.
They could do all of these things, but they’ll probably just continue to focus on their own internal affairs before casting judgement on others. What a strange concept.
Sources:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/192653.pdf
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/2012-07/31/c_131749881.htm
Related Articles:
Pingback: The U.S. Attacks Religious Freedom in China in a Textbook Example of Pot, Kettle, Black | Home Far Away From Home
While the PRC’s objections are salient, the reality is that law in China is still rather vague and enforcement quite arbitrary. The US can publish reports like these with legitimacy because the US has a clear legal system for distinguishing between religious and political freedoms. China does not yet have such a consistent system, which is why it is generally laughed at when it does things like report on pollution levels in the US or give out “Confucius awards” (to counter the Nobel Prize). Guilt-by-association is still a scary reality in China, which is why so many Falun Dafa practitioners quit the religion/cult. Even the casual members weren’t radical, obsessed, cult-members were afraid of being associated with the extremists who were left over from the purge.
More to the point, I don’t remember a time or place in history when religion was NOT deeply entrenched in politics. The distinction can be made, but only when there is a clear system for doing so. The US has this while China does not.
NB I have lived with the muslim Huizu and neighboring atheist Han, and the levels of distrust, suspicion, and racism were palpable. If you are going to compare the US and China, you ned to do so apples-to-apples. You cannot compare Chinese government policy with general attitudes in the US. Compare policy-to-policy and attitude-to-attitude.
Thank you for you thoughts on this. I’m not entirely convinced the US has a clear legal system in place to differentiate between religious and political freedoms (just look at abortion and gay marriage), but even if they did, would that necessarily mean they were justified in imposing these standards on other nations? I think that’s the main source of anger on the part of countries like China – being forced to play a game for which their opponent has written the rules.
Say thanks a lot for your time and eoftrfs to have decided to put these things together on this weblog. Robin and I very much liked your suggestions through the articles over certain things. I know that you have a variety of demands on your schedule and so the fact that you took just as much time just like you did to guide people really like us via this article is also highly loved.
Pingback: Hao Hao Report
Ah… I always love to see these sort of blogs written by people who spent 5 minutes in China and somehow seem to believe they actually have a clue about things…
Thanks for stopping by and completely backing up an observation I made on here a couple of weeks ago:
“For every experience that leads an individual to form a certain opinion of China, there are numerous others that have lead other people to form the opposite point of view. Read through the comments in any forum where people discuss Chinese issues and you will find petty squabbling and one-upmanship around every corner: “Dude, are you serious? You must of had your head up your ass ‘cos it’s not like that at all. I should know, I was there longer.” Given the veritable smorgasbord of contradictions inherent within Chinese society, exchanges such as this are inevitable, but no less pointless. Striving for an absolute understanding of China is a fruitless endeavour, as there are arguably as many Chinas as there are people who stay there for any length of time.”
If you have something constructive to add to any of the issues here then I’d love to hear from you. Otherwise please take your condescension elsewhere.
In China, I talked with Buddhist monks who, told me that they’d been victims of extortion by the local police. The police said something along the lines of, “If you don’t want to be raided and have your stuff damaged, you’d better make us happy.” So the monks paid them off, like they have since the 80′s, when they were allowed to start up their temple again after it was shut down in 1950. They said such extortion is common for Buddhist temples.
If they had religious freedom, they could simply go to the government and the extortion would stop.
You’re equating state-supported repression of religion with disagreement between individuals in a nation that protects religious freedom.
The two are not comparable.
Individuals will ALWAYS disagree. They should be free to disagree. The difference is whether the government allows that freedom or not.
Thanks for commenting. I think I should make it clear that I fully acknowledge the fact that the US government allows people to believe what they like and, to some extent, say what they like. This is something to be very proud of, and in fact you could say it is where they draw their strength from.
My point is that sometimes one person’s religious freedom is another’s political or social repression, especially when the concerns of a given religious group are protected and upheld by law. It doesn’t take much to realise that this creates a society that is far from flawless; definitely one that has no place telling others how to do things.