China is probably not a comfortable place to live

[MineralMan]

if you're a devout Christian or Muslim with political ideas. That certainly seems to be the case. The Chinese government doesn't particularly like folks who disagree with its policies or philosophy. So, if your religious beliefs mean that you object to what is essentially an atheist regime, you're probably not going to especially like the reaction.

However, that is China and how China apparently is. That doesn't make it an example for anything else that is not an identical situation. Wherever you are, if your philosophy and religion go against the government or the cultural norms of a place, you're probably going to be uncomfortable, at best, and perhaps treated poorly or even prosecuted, at worst.

Here in the United States, we have a government that is currently not pleased with Muslims who seek election to public office and win. Our President will say nasty things about you and his followers will post death threats against you on Facebook. If you have brown skin and grew up speaking Spanish, you'll run into the same issues here in the United States. People will think you aren't really an American and will treat you badly, because the head of our government seems to have a negative view of such people.

Every society has it's favorite groups and groups it doesn't like at all. I'm an atheist, and that's another group that takes a lot of crap from people who think their religious beliefs entitle them to some sort of extra privilege. It can be uncomfortable or even dangerous to be part of any of those "out" groups. People are often prejudiced and angry at people who don't look, sound, or think like they do. That's a typical situation, wherever you are.

It's too bad, whenever it occurs. That's not how things should be, most enlightened people think. But, there it is.

I don't live in China. I know nobody who lives in China. There are enough problems with intolerance and bigotry right where I do live. I try to help people who are set upon by other Americans, for whatever reason. I'm usually not very successful, though, since bigotry and intolerance are difficult to change. But, at least, I can try in the place where I live, to show support for those who are beset by prejudices and bigotry. I can express my disapproval of such negative behavior, and stand between people who are in dispute sometimes.

I can do nothing about China. Zero. So, I focus on intolerance and prejudice I encounter right here at home. Except for my lack of any religious beliefs, I'm a member of the approved population in this country, being white, male, heterosexual, and pretty well educated. So, I get to speak up and speak out against such ugly behavior here. I do that when I can and when I think it might be productive.

I can't do that in China, even though I recognize that there are people there who are beset by bigots or people with prejudices. I'm just a poor schlub living in Minnesota. So, I do what I can here and leave China to people who are in China. I'm sorry that everyone there isn't treated properly, but I see similar things all around me right nearby. I'm afraid I have to focus on that. I'd rather make my attempts to seek justice locally, rather than keep my attention on China.

[Act_of_Reparation]

1. You have to remember...

...they don't bring this up out of genuine concern for the wellbeing of Chinese theists. They bring it up because they think it makes atheists look like hypocrites.

[MineralMan]

2. That's interesting...and troubling, too.

It's the same old, erroneous equation that has all atheists being alike. China has an atheistic government, so I'm just like China, since I'm an atheist. Ignoring the philosophical and political differences between an individual's religious disbelief to draw a parallel with a nation's government is faulty logic in an enormously incorrect line of thinking.

Individual people appear to behave independently of of their religious beliefs or disbelief. Regardless of religion, people can behave in the full range of possible behaviors. There doesn't really seem to be any connection between religion and behavior, really.

At least I've never found any reliable association between the two things. The only reliable way to figure out the nature of a person is through observation over time. Religious belief is irrelevant, as far as I've been able to determine in 73 years.

[Act_of_Reparation]

5. That's why they accuse us of hypocrisy.

They think we are judging all believers based on the bad behavior of a few.

It's because they personalize the issue and conflate criticism of religion with intolerance towards the religious. If they were in any way interested making an honest comparison with China, they would be criticizing authoritarian government, not the atheists that comprise it.

[MineralMan]

6. Sure. We see that all the time.

Never mind most atheists' lack of concern about people's religious beliefs.

We are the "others" for many religious folks

[trotsky]

7. Well and...

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. It does help when they say it so explicitly.

[guillaumeb]

10. An interesting attempt at mind reading.

So, when atheists here post about predator priests, what is their motivation?

[MineralMan]

11. To decry sexual abuse of children by Christian priests and pastors.

What else would it be? Do they not know better? Should they be excused? Someone must speak against that abuse, don't you agree?

[Major Nikon]

29. Rather telling why someone would think an epidemic of child rape needs a "counterpoint"

[MineralMan]

33. It's the old, "But Bobby hit me first" ploy.

Diversion. I think I tried that trick on my mom. Once.

[trotsky]

34. Then the old Soviet Union weaponized it, and it became whataboutism.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/whataboutism-what-about-it/2017/08/17/4d05ed36-82b4-11e7-b359-15a3617c767b_story.html

For a nanosecond, especially to an uncritical listener, this stab at logic might seem interesting, even thought-provoking, and that’s why it’s a useful political tool. Whataboutism appears to broaden context, to offer a counterpoint, when really it’s diverting blame, muddying the waters and confusing the hell out of rational listeners.

“Not only does it help to deflect your original argument but it also throws you off balance,” says Alexey Kovalev, an independent Russian journalist, on the phone from Moscow. “You’re expecting to be in a civilized argument that doesn’t use cheap tricks like that. You are playing chess and your opponent — while making a lousy move — he just punches you on the nose.”

...Vladi­mir Putin has made a national sport of what-abouting. In 2014, when a journalist challenged him on his annexation of Crimea, Putin brought up the U.S. annexation of Texas. The American invasion of Iraq is constantly what-abouted on state television, to excuse all kinds of Russian behavior.

...“An old joke 50 years ago was that if you went to a Stalinist and criticized the Soviet slave-labor camps, the Stalinist would say, ‘Well what about the lynchings in the American South?’” philosopher Noam Chomsky once said.

Contrary to what our resident Whataboutist has tried to claim, it doesn't necessarily have to change the subject, it's just a tool to throw in a separate issue to derail the discussion and prevent critical analysis.

[Major Nikon]

35. Just one more in a long list of fallacies

It’s kind of like when you call bullshit on obvious hyperbole designed as an appeal to emotion and the response is...”Tell that to the inmates”.

So instead of honestly admitting to the duplicity once you’ve been cold hard busted, just double down on the exact same fallacy as if everyone else is just too stupid to catch the intellectual bankruptcy.

[Act_of_Reparation]

31. See #7

[marylandblue]

45. You've admitted previously that we may impute intent based on patterns

So your pattern is pretty clear and your intent imputed. You even have a pattern of claiming this is "mind reading" unless you yourself do the imputing.

[guillaumeb]

49. So, when atheists here post about predator priests, what is their motivation?

So...……….

[marylandblue]

68. I impute that they want to discuss child abuse in a large, influential religious institution.

[soryang]

3. James Bradley wrote The China Mirage, about US delusions of a Christian China

The subtitle is The Hidden History of American Disaster in Asia. The T.V. Soong family, the "Christians" behind Chiang Kai Shek, bilked the US out of the equivalent of billions of dollars in tax and missionary contributions to support their corrupt regime.

The principal delusion they marketed to a gullible US public was that China was destined to be the world's largest Christian democracy and a matter of the most important concern to the US for that reason.

Henry Luce's Time Life media empire was the primary marketer of this Christian Chinese Democracy delusion. Luce's father was a missionary in China who indoctrinated his son in the Christian Chinese Mirage who in turn sold the image to America.

...facts didn't matter when it came to promoting Reverend Luce's unfulfilled dream. From the 1930s to the 1970s, Ai-ling, Mayling, and T.V. Soong hosted Luce at their mansions in Nanking, Shanghai, Chungking, Hong Kong, Taipei, Washington and New York, and the publisher dutifully took notes as they spun the mirage just as Father Charlie had.

[MineralMan]

4. Thank you for your insights.

I admit that I have not studied China much during my life. I'm only vaguely aware of its history with regard to the United States. However, I never would have thought that China could become a "Christian" nation. I've met a couple of Christian missionaries who worked in China, but never found them to be very convincing people, overall. I doubt they accomplished much there. They did, however, bring a treasure trove of Chinese antiques back with them.

I appreciate reading what you wrote, since it's news for me.

China's great land mass and population would seem to me to make it a very poor target for missionary work, frankly. With a cultural heritage much older than Christianity, I can't imagine converting that ancient nation to Christianity.

[guillaumeb]

9. So all of your posts about theists around the world should be ignored?

Easy to ignore repression from a place of privilege.

Especially when the repression in question refutes a meme that some here love to promote.

[trotsky]

12. Oh? What meme is that?

Be specific. Also provide direct links to posts that prove your point.

[Major Nikon]

30. It looks as if the RCC's epidemic of child rape has been reduced to a "meme"

Very telling how someone would want to minimize a problem of literally biblical proportions to nothing more than a joke. Then again not all that surprising.

[MineralMan]

13. Not at all. My privilege gives me a voice I can use

to stand up for those without privilege, such as sexually abused children. I have zero privilege in China, though. Nor do you. I have no idea to what meme you refer, though. Perhaps you will state the meme?

[guillaumeb]

16. You ignored my point.

Understood.

[MineralMan]

18. I ignore nothing. You made no point.

[marylandblue]

46. Hard to ignore hurt children when it happens in your local church

But somehow you manage to equate that with other problems on the other side of the world, as if you could call the police on China and have them send a squad car over.

[MineralMan]

48. It is very hard to ignore repression and abuse in one's own country.

Or, at least, it should be. Attempts to divert from genuine concern and anger about such abuses are indicative of something that is rather ugly, really. Some people, including myself, have occasionally mentioned child sexual abuse in other countries, but that's only to point out the acceptance of such abuse by a church hierarchy, which has consistently covered it up wherever it occurs.

However, my interest is in human rights abuses in my own country, primarily. Children have rights. Immigrants to this country have rights. While such human rights are abused everywhere in the world, such abuses in my own country are my main interest, since I can speak out here and encouraging calling actual people to account.

I'm aware of human rights abuses in other nations, too, but am impotent to cause changes in those nations, generally. I do donate to international human rights organizations, when I can, such as Amnesty International, but I am far more active when it comes to internal abuses in my own nation.

Where children are being sexually abused, migrants are being imprisoned in "camps" at our borders, and people of color or of religions that are not the dominant religion are treated unjustly, I will speak out and do what I can to help eliminate such abuses in my own country. I will do less to fight abuse in, say China, since I have no means to affect any abuses that take place in other nations.

That abuses occur everywhere does not make abuses here any less heinous. But, here, I can stand and be heard. I can, perhaps, make a difference. I am just one person. I have limited access to authority figures. But, my voice is louder here than it is in some other country. I'm very suspicious when people attempt to divert from a real problem within our own borders by pointing out that similar problems occur elsewhere. I know that, but can act more effectively where I am. That a problem is widespread does not mean that it is not important, nor that it should not be addressed here.

Diversion, distraction, and whataboutism detract from finding solutions to real problems. Such tactics harm efforts to eliminate abuses. I don't like seeing people use such tactics.

[guillaumeb]

50. But easier when it happens to others?

Interesting display on your part.

[MineralMan]

52. You're clearly not reading my posts for understanding.

Please try harder. I'm not going to repeat myself.

[guillaumeb]

53. Easy to ignore suffering from a position of privilege, is it not?

And even easier to ignore suffering that does not support a position that one prefers to promote, is it not?

[MineralMan]

55. ..

[guillaumeb]

59. Always the best response.

[MineralMan]

61. Read my entire post for meaning.

Then reply. Clearly, you either did not read the post to which you replied or did not understand it. So, go and try again. I will not engage in useless banter with you today.

[guillaumeb]

63. Reverting to established behavior.

Understood.

[MineralMan]

66. Yes, you are.

I'm pretty sure you didn't even bother to read the original post that started this thread. Your posts about it indicate that you did not.

Then, you went off on a tangent based on the title of a later post of mine in the thread, apparently without reading that thread, either.

You do not seem to be interested in actual discussion in this thread. So, I will discontinue any further discussion with you in it.

I'm disappointed, once again...I'm sure you can do better.

[Bretton Garcia]

14. Possibly atheists in China ...

are worried about Muslim terrorists. Terroristic religion.

Possibly they are not even fully atheists in any case. Since Maoists or Communists in ways, worship the State

[MineralMan]

15. I truly cannot speak about Chinese atheists.

I don't know any. I work closely with a Chinese-born man, but we have never discussed religion. He is a neuroscientist, not a philosopher.

[guillaumeb]

17. Are you equating Islam with terrorism?

And, as a bonus, are you using the no true Scotsman fallacy in reference to Chinese atheists?

[MineralMan]

19. No. The Chinese are.

Please pay attention.

[guillaumeb]

20. Thank you, group spokesperson.

[MineralMan]

22. I started this thread. I will address posts in it

As I please. It is not your thread.

[Bretton Garcia]

25. Rep. Ilhan Omar usefully clarified this issue

She rightly noted that only a very few, "some" Muslims or people from the Middle East, were engaged in terrorist acts, like 911.

[guillaumeb]

26. Onyl a very few of any demographic engages in terrorism.

Thank you for clarifying.

[guillaumeb]

21. Making excuses for repression is a slippery slope.

[MineralMan]

23. Are sexually abusive priests and pastors repressive?

Do you excuse them? Think.

[guillaumeb]

24. What is the point of your original post?

It sounds as if you are suggesting that we at DU should ignore the repression in China because we have no influence.

But the same argument can be made for the many posts about priestly predation in other countries.

So, apart from a double standard, what justifies ignoring Chinese repression of theists? Other than the obvious one, of course.

[marylandblue]

36. No, the same argument cannot be made about priestly predation in other countries

America has almost no influence over Chinese internal affairs. Ordinary Americans have even less influence than the American government. But we do have influence over the Catholic Church, countries with large Catholic populations and individual Catholics. There's a really long list of things you can do to make the RCC change it's ways. It's just disingenuous to compare the two situations.

[guillaumeb]

37. No, the argument fails.

The US also trades with China. The economic influence is there.

The real reason, in my view, is that the example of the atheistic controlled and led Chinese Government acting in the same repressive way as other theistic governments refutes the idea that theism is the key, or one of the keys, to repression.

And the small group here cannot refute what is actually happening in China, so some suggest that we should ignore it.

[marylandblue]

38. You are being disingenuous, unless you are calling for a boycott of Chinese products.

Good luck with that. I used to buy American made products over Chinese, but eventually I couldn't even find American versions of most things.

On the other hand, investigations in American have imfluenced other countries to investigate, and that did cause the RCC did change some of its practices.

[guillaumeb]

39. Is China different?

Is it immune to economic and diplomatic pressure?

No, it is not.

[marylandblue]

40. It is in fact almost immune. We've never had any significant influence

over it's internal affairs. It's simply a fact. But even if you don't accept this fact, the degree of influence is far smaller than we have over the Church. Grand juries and lawsuits have brought some measure of justice. Some Catholics have simply left the church or stopped donating to Catholic causes. What's an individual atheist going to do to China? Stop going to Communist Party meetings?

[guillaumeb]

41. Money is power.

But many business people and politicians in the US are only concerned about money. And China is a huge market, and holds many billions in US securities and real property.

[marylandblue]

42. You are being disingenuous again. If you cared about children as much as you cared about straw dogs

You'd be standing in St. Peters Square in sackcloth and ashes holding a sign saying "Fornicators Repent!" But you only care about straw dogs. So you engage in your hypocrisies(I have faith that you are hypocrite, no evidence required) here, while don't so much as inquire after the well-being of children in your own neighborhood.

[guillaumeb]

43. Much judgment in evidence.

And name calling.

If you truly cared about oppression, would you not care about the oppressed victims of the Chinese Government?

[marylandblue]

44. I freely admit you have no proof I am judgemental

And I have no proof I am not. It is simply a matter of faith, speaking only for myself.

[trotsky]

47. China is different than the Roman Catholic Church, yes.

And since this is the RELIGION group, one of them is a bit more topical than the other.

But whataboutists gotta whatabout, I understand.

[guillaumeb]

51. So the systematic repression of theists by the Chinese Government is NOT topical?

Or, does it expose the weakness of the much promoted (by some few) meme here?

[MineralMan]

54. What meme? State it, please.

Of course any religious suppression is topical. However, it is not related to the topic of child sexual abuse by priests and pastors in any way. Your use of it to respond to that topic is off-topic and is whataboutism.

The two things are not related to each other, as many have tried to explain to you. They are separate issues, and need to be discussed separately from each other. You're trying to link to unlinkable issues together.

[guillaumeb]

58. Your comments about China, and your many suggestions that Chinese repression of theists

should be ignored in this Group confirm the correctness of my observations.

And this post continues that established pattern.

The scientific method of observation and analysis.

And, perhaps to your surprise, this Group is not confined to child sexual predation by priests. I understand, as do others, that you focus on this topic very often, but you do not determine what topics are appropriate.

Perhaps, if the China posts bother you that much, you should petition for a specific Group limited to your preferred topic.

[trotsky]

62. Your whataboutism isn't exposing a thing other than your own dishonesty.

The "meme" you refer to doesn't exist, except in your own mind. I have seen no one say that only religion is responsible for bad behavior. Literally NO ONE. You expend all this effort trying to take down a straw man. It's pathetic, really. Why do you act this way?

[guillaumeb]

64. A typical attempt at framing, using much straw.

[trotsky]

65. A non-response. I understand.

You're giving up again, as you always do.

Have your precious last word.

[MineralMan]

71. My point was something you clearly missed.

Perhaps you should read more carefully and thoroughly.

[guillaumeb]

72. There is an alternative explanation.

One you ignore. And I understand your reasons.

[MineralMan]

73. There is an alternative explanation of faith, too.

One you ignore or reject without evidence.

[Bretton Garcia]

27. Making excuses for religion is a slippery slope.

[guillaumeb]

28. Agreed. eom

[trotsky]

32. Good, then stop doing it. n/t

[AlexSFCA]

56. Let me ask you this

If muslims have increased their majorities and political power in the US, how do you think it would advance women and lgbt rights?
IMO, we should strive for secularism in government. I always find it offensive when I see religious symbols being displayed by elected officials (cross, yamaka, hijab, burka, etc.). They are all divisive. It’s great that we are seeing diversity, but don’t kid yourself if you think that majority muslim government in the US would not be similarly ostracizing christians and jews running for office.
I have yet to see any muslim country respect women and lgbt rights even in comparison to christian countries. I love Bill Maher common sence sober view on religion (they are not all equal).

[MineralMan]

60. There is a long way to go before Muslims have any real political power

in the United States. I agree that government should be completely secular, but it is not. However, there is no danger of the country becoming an Islamic nation. None at all. We have enough trouble with fundamentalist Christians who would dearly love to put women and minorities into second or third class citizenship.

The real danger does not come from Muslims or Islam in the internal politics of the United States. That's a shibboleth of the Right.

[still_one]

57. Perhaps history is the best guide to what the West did to China

"For many years, Great Britain worked within this system to run a three country trade operation: It shipped Indian cotton and British silver to China, and Chinese tea and other Chinese goods to Britain (see Map 2). In the 18th and early 19th centuries, the balance of trade was heavily in China’s favour. One major reason was that British consumers had developed a strong liking for Chinese tea, as well as other goods like porcelain and silk. But Chinese consumers had no similar preference for any goods produced in Britain. Because of this trade imbalance, Britain increasingly had to use silver to pay for its expanding purchases of Chinese goods. In the late 1700s, Britain tried to alter this balance by replacing cotton with opium, also grown in India. In economic terms, this was a success for Britain; by the 1820s, the balance of trade was reversed in Britain’s favour, and it was the Chinese who now had to pay with silver."


https://asiapacificcurriculum.ca/learning-module/opium-wars-china

In other words because of the trade imbalance, the West effectively acted as drug pushers, to get the advantage over China.

Is this "Christian ethics"?

[MineralMan]

67. Ah...yes...the opium trade.

Was it ethical? Was it "Christian." Obviously it was neither. However, since the British saw the Chinese as inferior humans, worthy of no respect as human beings, opium as a product was never given a second thought. It was profitable, so it was sold.

I'm not a Christian. I am an ethical person. I would not have engaged in that poisonous commerce. However, it is certainly one of the reasons for the failure of the European world and its foreign religion to make inroads into China. The opium trade poisoned the relationship permanently and demonstrated the lack of ethics of Europe in general and the British in particular.

It was an ugly chapter in history, to say the least.

[still_one]

69. I know you are ethical MM, I just though a little historical background my add some perspective

[MineralMan]

70. I understand. I do know the history, or at least the outlines of it.

The European West thought it could extend its exploitation into China, as it had in so many other places. The British, the Portuguese, and others tried to bring their imperialism to China and the rest of East Asia, but found it thwarted for the most part.

Sadly, they destroyed any chance of establishing an ethical commerce with China and the others, by introducing poison as a trade good. Why would any nation trust such a trading partner? Of course the Europeans brought their foreign religion and its evangelists with them on the ships. Another mistake.

During my life, I have met a couple of old-time China evangelists, of the Protestant sort. One family, I knew pretty well, since I dated a daughter in my age group. What always puzzled me, even as a teenager, was how they spoke of the Chinese people as being like "uneducated children," while at the same time acquiring antiques and works of art from that culture in quantity and bringing it home with them. I was told many stories about individual objects they had acquired, usually with a joke about how little they had paid for what were their "priceless antiques." Of course, they also had many fakes in their collection, since they had no real knowledge of what they were buying. The greed and dishonesty was palpable in them. That they were sold fake merchandise escaped their attention.

Godly people, though, they were, by their own accounts.