Should China Encourage religion?

06 October 2010

I came across a nice article in the Global Times about religion in China. The Global Times is a Chinese Communist Party tabloid, but it far more interesting than Western tabloids such as The Sun. Although it aims at the average man, it covers some interesting topics with a degree of sophistication that we don't see in the Western popular press. It also avoids the crass materialism of the Western popular press.

The article I republish below talks about the role of religion in Chinese Society. I think this article is interesting because it demonstrates the way Chinese approach government. There is no assumption of a human right to freedom, both points of view concentrate on the cost / benefits religion delivers to society. This completely rational approach to government reflects the New Eastern Perspective I summarize in my Scientific Development Concept article. If the average man in China really appreciates this type of analysis, China is miles ahead of the West.

The Case Against - Encouraging public religion discourages national progress

Recently the Chinese government has taken some strong steps aiding specific religions, such as funding the construction of local churches, including a 5,000-seat Christian mega church in Nanjing.

A spokesman said the government hopes that under the new policies "religions can enjoy better development."

In my opinion the government is going too far and making a grave mistake.

Of course, making life easier for believers would be a great step forward, but at the same time, actively encouraging the development of religion is detrimental to the scientific and social development of a country.

One of China's great political advantages has been that it has a very secular population. This has allowed China to progress quickly in many key areas where other more religious countries are floundering.

Many countries are governed by or at least lean toward one religion and subsequently those beliefs are brought into nearly every debate on legislation concerning morality. Pointless debates that distract from important ones are also frequent.

Last month, for example, some US congressmen were desperately trying to save an energy bill that could have had an enormous positive impact on the environment. During this time there was a fierce debate across the country, but unfortunately, the debate wasn't over energy.

The debate was whether a Muslim community center should be built near "Ground Zero" of the September 11 attacks in New York City.

A petty religious issue eclipsed the ultimate death of the energy bill which could prove to be one of the great blunders in recent human history.

In 2001, President George W. Bush, a devout evangelical Christian, placed a ban on federal funding for stem cell research due to a dubious evangelist view that using embryos, which would otherwise be wasted, equates to murder.

The same story of religious influence in government policy has unfolded on issues like teaching evolution, gay rights, and even slavery.

This is all from a country whose government is officially secular and theoretically free from the influence of religion.

Issues like the repressive laws against women in countries ruled by Sharia law hardly need mentioning.

Nor do catastrophic religious campaigns like the Crusades and the Inquisition, which set scientific progress back centuries.

When a high enough percentage of a population shares a single religion, their beliefs will inevitably trickle up into policy no matter how secular the government claims to be.

But the detrimental role of religion to society doesn't stop at official policy.

Numerous studies, including a 2006 Pitzer College comparative analysis of nations, have shown a very strong correlation between high levels of religious belief and low levels of societal health. This includes things like higher teen pregnancy rates, higher STD infection rates, lower education levels, and less gender equality.

Look at the other end of the spectrum and some of the world's most progressive and developed nations like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are among the least religious.

The Chinese government should allow people to worship as they choose, but at the same time, if scientific, social, and economic development is their goal, they should refrain from promoting religion and hastening China's already rapid religious growth.

However, those who are religious but also value scientific and social progress should cherish a government that doesn't try to stimulate any religion, whether it's the religion they follow or an opposing one.

This way, policy and social norms can be based on the realities and practical needs of the present rather than subjective texts of the past.

The Case For - Believers play critical part in creating healthy civil society

Many Americans have a chip on their shoulder about religion.

Some are convinced evangelicals, ready to bring the gospel to you whether you like it or not. Others become so worn down by the constant barrage of the religious right that they become pro-foundly anti-religious in turn.

Irreligious Americans often look to Europe as an example. But Europe's development conditions were unusual, marked by strong and organized transnational religious organization that set itself firmly against modernity. Small Nordic countries are hardly the best model for a complicated world.

The churches played a crucial role in developing the Scandinavian social model in the first place. Equally the Crusades, brutal as they were, didn't damage progress.

Instead, the Crusader kingdoms and the mixing of cultures played a crucial part in transferring the scientific and medical knowledge of the Arab world back to Europe through monasteries and priestly scholars, sparking the intellectual revival of the thirteenth century and sowing the seeds for the Renaissance.

Those European countries that were, at one stage, officially atheist are among the continent's less developed. Nobody is holding up Albania, for instance, as a role model. The argument that religion correlates strongly with a lack of development is simply bad logic, brought about by the specific conditions of recent European secularization. Correlation, as ever, does not necessarily equal causation. The author of the 2006 Pfizer college study, Phil Zuckerman, has made this clear, writing, "People think I'm arguing that secularity causes good social outcomes, and that's not necessarily the case."

Sociological studies have repeatedly shown that religious people are more socially committed, more likely to volunteer their time to aid others, have a stronger sense of community, and suffer less from anomie and alienation. The US, the most religious Western nation, also has by far the highest levels of charity and volunteer work.

Religion is a crucial element of a healthy civil society, something which China needs. It provides a set of values that go beyond the materialism and short-term thinking which are repeatedly derided in the Chinese press.

The rest of the world is, in fact, rapidly proving that secularization and modernity don't have to go together. Highly religious South Korea remains a powerhouse for its size, especially compared to its atheist neighbor.

In Africa, Christians and Muslims alike play a strong role in attempts to clean up government, eliminate tribalism, and create national unity. A disproportionately high percentage of African activists are religious, such as the Kenyan whistle-blower and devout Christian John Githongo.
Social activism and religion go hand-in-glove. The American evangelical revival of the 1970s was highly unusual in that it was the first such movement in the US not to be associated with calls for social justice, instead being hijacked by the religious right.

The previous "Great Awakenings" were strongly linked with labor reform, anti-corruption, egalitarian ideals, and women's suffrage. The anti-slavery movement was driven by evangelical Christians, while the civil rights movement grew out of the black churches of the South.

The greatest politicians tend to be both highly motivated and strongly empathic, two traits often associated with faith. No religious politicians would mean, for instance, no Reverend Martin Luther King, no Sun Yat-sen, no Gandhi, no Nelson Mandela, and no Kim Dae-jung.

China's recent steps toward a wider public role for religion should be applauded, not condemned based on the narrow experience of the modern US.

China's current religious policy

According to the State Administration for Religious Affairs, China is a multi-religious country where Taoism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity exist harmoniously. There are over 100 million believers and 85,000 religious venues in China.

Li Ruihuan, a former State leader, once neatly summarized China's religious policy:

First, it is inevitable that religion is a long-standing component that will continue to exist in socialist China. The government should neither suppress nor advocate religious activities.

Second, freedom of religious belief is justified and protected by the Constitution. An individual has the right to be a believer, as well as to be a non-believer.

Third, the Communist Party of China (CPC) encourages atheism. But it does not mean CPC is politically adversary to religious groups. It should be common sense that different beliefs can respect each other and coexist.

Fourth, the government should supervise religious activities and crack down on crimes that exploit people's religious faith.

The first point of view says: Religion is negative but we can't get away with banning it, so just don't promote it. The second point of view says: Religion may be bad, but it has more upside than downside, so lets promote it. Personally, of course, I don't think the CCP should promote atheism, it should build a new religion, and only promote than one.