Do NOT practice Christianity in China..

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by FireFly

What's odd is that in a state where the seperation of church and state was absolutely enforced, you get the most dissent and the highest practising of religion. In a state where the church and state were not separated, you have a very low number of citizens who practise.

It's not the same. In China, you could argue there is no separation of Church and state because the State IS the religion. Religions are not tolerated in China because they usurp the supremacy of the communist state. The state allows some permitted moderate religions, but only so that they can maintain control and monitor them. Others like Falun Gong are wholly banned as destructive (ritual bowel surgery) and a danger to state rule with harsh punishments and torture.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Cheese

One hopes for freedom through a divine entity....the other understands the hope as false.

Frankly, that makes no sense. The US which historically was very strict about the separation of church and state is more likely to hope for freedom through a divine entity. Canadians who historically approved of church interference in the state regards that hope as false? Ummm... so does that mean if more churches interfere in more states that people would realize the futility of hoping for freedom through a divine entity?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

It's not the same. In China, you could argue there is no separation of Church and state because the State IS the religion. Religions are not tolerated in China because they usurp the supremacy of the communist state. The state allows some permitted moderate religions, but only so that they can maintain control and monitor them. Others like Falun Gong are wholly banned as destructive (ritual bowel surgery) and a danger to state rule with harsh punishments and torture.

I know, just pointing it out for those who are advocating the separation of church and state to resolve issues like this that sometimes it works backwards.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Cheese

One hopes for freedom through a divine entity....the other understands the hope as false.

Just because you haven't been to that place, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by troutman

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ... (snip)

Well Cheese won't take this up, but I will (and it's an incredibly easy argument to take on). Here's one simple thing that will answer the question of how much influence the UN has:

"How big a stick does the UN carry?"

Yeah, I thought so.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Well Cheese won't take this up, but I will (and it's an incredibly easy argument to take on). Here's one simple thing that will answer the question of how much influence the UN has:

"How big a stick does the UN carry?"

Yeah, I thought so.

Well, it you believe might makes right, I guess you win. Personally I hold man to higher standards, such as truth, justice, equality and freedom to name a few.

What China is doing is an affront to freedom. I'm not saying that religion is stain free either, just that both are often wrong.

[Cheese]

IF you really think about it...the two most controlling forces in humanity are Politics and Religion.
I find it very interesting that people choose to hold onto either in their current form, and better yet suggest that its a "right".
Years and years and years of programming.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Just because you haven't been to that place, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And that is exactly what all religions want everyone to believe.

"Just because we cant prove it doesnt mean it doesnt exist!"

I think they need to sell a better mixer.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Cheese

And that is exactly what all religions want everyone to believe.

"Just because we cant prove it doesnt mean it doesnt exist!"

I think they need to sell a better mixer.

Did you know that only 22% of Canadians say that religion is very important to them? About 44% of Americans say the same thing, with 59% going to church.

Cheese, love, you should really take your quasi-sermon to the US where it will be more effective.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Cheese
One hopes for freedom through a divine entity....the other understands the hope as false

This is where your argument gets derailed.

Those people dont HOPE for freedom, they BELIEVE it. There is a massive difference.


Which takes me back to the original argument...who is the government of China to decide which beliefs anyone should follow within their core value system??

The only reason they do exert control...is just for that...control. It's oppression with a capitol O, and it's wrong on every single level.

[Cowperson]

[quote=Cheese] Choice within a countries laws....like it is the choice within Canada for Gays to marry. I may not agree with what or how China governs itself, but it is within its rights to create rules and laws.

I disagree actually. If they haven't stood before an electorate then we are not talking about a "country being within its rights to create rules and laws." Instead, we are talking about "a narrow few" determining what is right and wrong.

You can make your statement about a legitimate democracy, but you can't make it about China.

I personally could care less about a bunch of Christians, Mormans, Islamics or Mudpuckers having a big ole Kumbayah....but IF they feel they are above Politics then whats to stop them from getting involved in it later as they brain wash the masses?

Nothing should stop them from expressing their viewpoint and putting forward candidates representing their interests. They're a legitimate special interest group with the right to express their viewpoint just as any other special interest group has that right, including the atheists and agnostics who would be opposed to their gaining influence.

You don't see me wringing my hands because radical Islamists were elected in Palestine . . . . . so long as they face a second and third election down the road where the people can turf them if they're unhappy about policies leaning towards hard core religion.

If we can question it as a sham...then a government should surely have the right to determine it is just that.

No. That would violate the concept of separation of church and state.

Cowperson

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by transplant99

This is where your argument gets derailed.

Those people dont HOPE for freedom, they BELIEVE it. There is a massive difference.


Which takes me back to the original argument...who is the government of China to decide which beliefs anyone should follow within their core value system??

The only reason they do exert control...is just for that...control. It's oppression with a capitol O, and it's wrong on every single level.

You have no proof of that tranny. Without actually going to China and living there. You are speculating.

[Cheese]

[quote=Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Choice within a countries laws....like it is the choice within Canada for Gays to marry. I may not agree with what or how China governs itself, but it is within its rights to create rules and laws.

I disagree actually. If they haven't stood before an electorate then we are not talking about a "country being within its rights to create rules and laws." Instead, we are talking about "a narrow few" determining what is right and wrong.

You can make your statement about a legitimate democracy, but you can't make it about China.

I personally could care less about a bunch of Christians, Mormans, Islamics or Mudpuckers having a big ole Kumbayah....but IF they feel they are above Politics then whats to stop them from getting involved in it later as they brain wash the masses?

Nothing should stop them from expressing their viewpoint and putting forward candidates representing their interests. They're a legitimate special interest group with the right to express their viewpoint just as any other special interest group has that right, including the atheists and agnostics who would be opposed to their gaining influence.

You don't see me wringing my hands because radical Islamists were elected in Palestine . . . . . so long as they face a second and third election down the road where the people can turf them if they're unhappy about policies leaning towards hard core religion.

If we can question it as a sham...then a government should surely have the right to determine it is just that.

No. That would violate the concept of separation of church and state.

Cowperson

Well we agree to disagree Mr Person. There are hundreds of countries that dont have an "electorate". Do I like that system? Nope....but it is their system and in China it serves Billions of people. Those Billions appear content to live within those boundaries....at this point. Those boundaries suggest that the "few can and do make rules".
Countries such as Canada, the USA,, Britain, etc etc are also completely aware of this type of Government, yet feel free to have complete diplomacy and allow their corporate citizens to set up shop within Chinese borders. I guess democracy is what you make of it...our Governments dont seem to mind selling their wares to the Billions, even with limitations. Simply because they are not set up like western civilization doesnt make them bad...or worse. They are different.
You might not be wringing your hands about radical Muslims, but there might be millions of others who do. Those parties are all organized and controlled by religious militants...the exact thing I am against.
The fact that these political parties are controlled by organizations whose bottom line is an adherence to a specific type of religion obviously dont understand the separation of church and state either.

[transplant99]

You have no proof of that tranny. Without actually going to China and living there. You are speculating.

I'm "speculating" that Christians believe in what they worship?

Huh?

So Christians in China need to prove they are genuine in their beliefs before they are allowed to worship those beliefs? Does that apply everywhere as well?

Color me confused.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I'm "speculating" that Christians believe in what they worship?

Huh?

So Christians in China need to prove they are genuine in their beliefs before they are allowed to worship those beliefs? Does that apply everywhere as well?

Color me confused.

Actually you are confusing me tranny...

your words...and mine before...

Originally Posted by Cheese
One hopes for freedom through a divine entity....the other understands the hope as false


This is where your argument gets derailed.

Those people dont HOPE for freedom, they BELIEVE it. There is a massive difference.


Which takes me back to the original argument...who is the government of China to decide which beliefs anyone should follow within their core value system??

The only reason they do exert control...is just for that...control. It's oppression with a capitol O, and it's wrong on every single level

.

You said...and these are your words...Those people dont HOPE for freedom, they BELIEVE it.

I said...how on earth do you know they "Believe" and not hope? I said...maybe you have to be there and live there to really know what they feel. I think theist dogma is pretty much all hope considering theres no proof of anything they preach.

[V]

Well, to Christians, hope and faith are linked pretty tightly. So I'm not sure what the argument is.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

[Cowperson]

There are hundreds of countries that dont have an "electorate".

There are 191 countries belonging to the UN.

A statistical ranking on most of them, based on civil and political liberties, is here:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/dem_civ_and_pol_lib

Its about a 50/50 split.

Do I like that system? Nope....but it is their system and in China it serves Billions of people. Those Billions appear content to live within those boundaries....at this point. Those boundaries suggest that the "few can and do make rules".

How would you know if they are content? You don't. OR, we could look at the increasing level of rioting and civil disobedience events in China as a gauge that contentment is on a decreasing trend.

Countries such as Canada, the USA,, Britain, etc etc are also completely aware of this type of Government, yet feel free to have complete diplomacy and allow their corporate citizens to set up shop within Chinese borders. I guess democracy is what you make of it...our Governments dont seem to mind selling their wares to the Billions, even with limitations. Simply because they are not set up like western civilization doesnt make them bad...or worse. They are different.

One of the better ways to press them to democratize is through free enterprise. The controversy over Google search engines in China is one modest example of the poop hitting the fan. I see democracy as inevitable in China simply because of the way the economy is going . . . . although the country might fracture first.

Do you think 1.6 billion Chinese would vote for communism?

You might not be wringing your hands about radical Muslims, but there might be millions of others who do.

I didn't say I wasn't wringing my hands about radical Muslims.

I said I wasn't wringing my hands about radical Muslims getting elected in a fair process AND having to face the electorate a second and a third time to answer for their policies.

The former is a largely faceless and nebulous thought while the latter is the face of a nation, with all the responsibilities and consequences that goes along with that.

The latter also represents the truth of what a population feels . . . . and is easier dealt with on that basis.

Pundits have observed that election of hardcore Islamists is probably inevitable as replacements for Middle East dictatorships as those groups are the groups who often run hospitals, schools, etc and therefore are seen as a positive force for change to long-oppressed and disadvantaged peoples.

The fact that these political parties are controlled by organizations whose bottom line is an adherence to a specific type of religion obviously dont understand the separation of church and state either.

Turkey has elected what we might consider to be hard core Islamist government . . . . . yet they are forced to govern on a different plane because they DO have to face the electorate again.

As another example, there are many who feel that if free and open elections were held in Iran, that you would see a 180 degree difference in how that country approaches the world. But we don't know the truth since free elections have not been held there.

I would prefer the separation of church and state but there are peoples in the world who may feel religion should be part of government . . . . . and IF they elect parties representing that train of thought, THEN we can say we are dealing with truth.

In China and other places, we don't know what the truth is. Its probably not communism though!!!

Cowperson

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Cheese

so now we have Canada's High Court approving Sikh students rights to carry daggers into classrooms.

Daggers in the classroom

In its decision, the court noted that Sikh orthodoxy requires the wearing of the daggers, known as kirpans, even though they are banned from airplanes and some courtrooms.

So we have to protect the judges by banning them from courtrooms, and passengers on airlines....yet we allow them in our schools where poor judgement could be used in a schoolyard fight?

Dumb. What reason would anyone have to carry a knife around in school? You're no less of a Sikh if you leave it at home. People hold onto their ancient traditions way too strongly, and our courts shouldn't do the same.
Religious rights getting in the way of student safety. The priorities are in the wrong place.

[Cheese]

There are hundreds of countries that dont have an "electorate".

There are 191 countries belonging to the UN.

A statistical ranking on most of them, based on civil and political liberties, is here:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/dem_civ_and_pol_lib

Its about a 50/50 split.

So we agree here....1/2 the worlds countries arent democratic in a western sense.

Do I like that system? Nope....but it is their system and in China it serves Billions of people. Those Billions appear content to live within those boundaries....at this point. Those boundaries suggest that the "few can and do make rules".

How would you know if they are content? You don't. OR, we could look at the increasing level of rioting and civil disobedience events in China as a gauge that contentment is on a decreasing trend.

Well I DO know they appear to be happy in their way of life...and I do much work with them so I do get to talk to business partners and I do have 3 Chinese people I work closely with...and I have been there....and we have a few CPers who travel to China extensively for business. I am 100% sure there are many of the Billions who would prefer the western way...I am also 100% sure there are many who prefer the way they have it. Maybe your assuming the entire world would be a better place with a westernized view of democracy? There is also Civil disobedience in western society...this is not a symptom only of China or non westernized nations.

Countries such as Canada, the USA,, Britain, etc etc are also completely aware of this type of Government, yet feel free to have complete diplomacy and allow their corporate citizens to set up shop within Chinese borders. I guess democracy is what you make of it...our Governments dont seem to mind selling their wares to the Billions, even with limitations. Simply because they are not set up like western civilization doesnt make them bad...or worse. They are different.

One of the better ways to press them to democratize is through free enterprise. The controversy over Google search engines in China is one modest example of the poop hitting the fan. I see democracy as inevitable in China simply because of the way the economy is going . . . . although the country might fracture first.

Do you think 1.6 billion Chinese would vote for communism?

LOL...so forced democracy? Is that the same as forced religion? Anyways China might move to democracy...but the pendulum swings both ways Cow.

You might not be wringing your hands about radical Muslims, but there might be millions of others who do.

I didn't say I wasn't wringing my hands about radical Muslims.

I said I wasn't wringing my hands about radical Muslims getting elected in a fair process AND having to face the electorate a second and a third time to answer for their policies.

The former is a largely faceless and nebulous thought while the latter is the face of a nation, with all the responsibilities and consequences that goes along with that.

The latter also represents the truth of what a population feels . . . . and is easier dealt with on that basis.

Pundits have observed that election of hardcore Islamists is probably inevitable as replacements for Middle East dictatorships as those groups are the groups who often run hospitals, schools, etc and therefore are seen as a positive force for change to long-oppressed and disadvantaged peoples.

I was talking the same thing you are...in less prose. We disagree completely on the allowance of religiously based parties being elected. Im assuming you would be ok in about 20 years with a Muslim based party being elected in Canada? Is that possible? Maybe we'll be too old and wouldnt give a damn anyways.

The fact that these political parties are controlled by organizations whose bottom line is an adherence to a specific type of religion obviously dont understand the separation of church and state either.

Turkey has elected what we might consider to be hard core Islamist government . . . . . yet they are forced to govern on a different plane because they DO have to face the electorate again.

As another example, there are many who feel that if free and open elections were held in Iran, that you would see a 180 degree difference in how that country approaches the world. But we don't know the truth since free elections have not been held there.

I would prefer the separation of church and state but there are peoples in the world who may feel religion should be part of government . . . . . and IF they elect parties representing that train of thought, THEN we can say we are dealing with truth.

In China and other places, we don't know what the truth is. Its probably not communism though!!!

I think Communism as we knew it is a non entity for the most part...small pockets like North Korea excepted. There are the odd exceptions to every rule Cow...like Turkey. Hell theres exceptions to the democratic rule as well. I still think we need to seperate the two entities completely.

[Vulcan]

Whether it's a democracy, theocracy, communism, or a dictatorship, I find any government that bans ideas to be infringing on freedom. What are they afraid of?

As far as Cheese's ideology goes, I find it just as constricting and instead of deprogramming, it only reprograms, leaving one living in a different straightjacket. It replaces religious literature with it's own manifesto. It's the yin to religions yang. From my understanding, real truth can't be written down, it can only be experienced.