Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China Cracks Down on Churches

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 245 posts

Re: China Cracks Down on Churches

#131

Post by dvtrn »

kadendogthing wrote: post #122
dvtrn wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of awareness on display right now is astounding and borderline offensive, people just don't hold the "opinion" that Christians are persecuted around the world, they are pointing to actual current events of Christian persecution. https://www.wsj.com/articles/egyptian-church-hit-by-bomb-bla... https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/29-coptic-christians-mu... https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/18/mosuls-christians…

You have significantly misunderstood the context of the conversation. No one has said that Christians aren't persecuted around the world. No one has even implied this was the case. Because people don't hold such opinions. He is implying that people hold these opinions. I am asking for some kind of substantial material validating the frequency of such opinions. It helps to respond to the actual conversation instead of…

I am asking for some kind of substantial material validating the frequency of such opinions.

What are the odds that I could go to ten different blogs from ten different Joe's from across the internet saying how bad it is for Christians in the world, come back here, link them, that you'll backpedal more to say that the sources provided aren't authoritative enough?

Re: China Cracks Down on Churches

#132

Post by traderjane »

somethingle234 wrote: post #98
krapp wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "accepting" a faith? Accepting its tenets as true, or accepting the presence of its adherents?

My use of English isn't very good, I apologize. Let me give a thought experiment. Let's say: one religion believes that the person who leaves that religion should be killed Should I be ok with the person with this religion? Should I do something about this? I want to say there are good practices and bad practices. But our ideology is to accept all of them. That's not good.

I would argue that a western perspective is to wait for harmful action to connect with harmful intent or harmful planning. Then, for the act of harming, a person should be held accountable by society in a reviewable way.

Re: China Cracks Down on Churches

#133

Post by coliveira »

dahidahi1 wrote: post #37
nyolfen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what is "borderline terrorism"? the churches in the article were targeted for criticizing corrupt officials, in china

Why is the church indulging in criticism? Who are they? What right do they have to do that? How do they know that the officials are corrupt? How do you know that is the only thing the church did, if they even did that? How do YOU know for a fact that the official was corrupt? Too many questions & you seem to be naive enough to take everything at face value. Again, why does the church interfere in such things? Isn't t…

Completely agree. The political behavior of the Christian church is well known across history, and entails basically getting the best benefits of the government for itself and persecution or suppression for other beliefs. People in this thread trying to support the political activity of Christians in China seem that have no historical perspective of what this religion did and does up to this day to advance its agenda.

Re: China Cracks Down on Churches

#134

Post by 13of40 »

friedman23 wrote: post #95
jeswin wrote: post #89

I participate in Christian festivities and find them quite joyful. It's a wonderful time of the year for most of the world. However, whether countries should allow the propogation of religion and mythology is entirely up to them. Many countries have laws against various forms of deception - and religion straddles that line (of deception) so often. If action is being taken against the people who propagate "falsety" ra…

> However, whether countries should allow the propogation of religion and mythology is entirely up to them. This isn't a democratic country, so you should rephrase your statement justifying this as "whether an authoritarian cabal should allow the propagation of a religion and mythology is entirely up to them" A person's beliefs are up to them not their government.

> A person's beliefs are up to them not their government.

How do you square that with the fact that most religious people were indoctrinated at an early age by their relatives and community, rather than developing their beliefs on their own? At the end of the day, it's not a struggle for freedom versus government control, it's a struggle over who gets to do the indoctrinating.

Re: China Cracks Down on Churches

#135

Post by mmirate »

chapium wrote: post #83
KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People need to be open to the idea that they're wrong, even atheists. Monocultures where other people are forced to accept your values create stagnation and dangers long term. There have been plenty of evil committed in the name of enforcing that which is righteous: communism, religions of all types, even democracy. It's better to let people have the freedom to make their own choices. You can choose to learn from the…

This paints atheism as its own philosophy, but that would be inaccurate. To reject one philosophy does not automatically default you to a separate one.

(Presuming that you are using the word "atheism" correctly here, and didn't actually mean to say "agnosticism"...)

I may be an atheist, but I'm not going to pretend that it isn't its own philosophy.

Of course, in the eyes of most technical personnel, atheism is much simpler than any religious philosophy.

But, at the end of the day: atheism, mythologies and religions are all sets of answers to the same set of otherwise-unanswered questions that humanity beholds.

Re: China Cracks Down on Churches

#136

Post by nkozyra »

ghobs91 wrote: post #29

This is why it's frustrating when some make it seem that Christians are incapable of facing persecution, based entirely on their experiences in the US. The Christians in China are very brave for standing by their faith, and I wish them luck and peace.

I think that may be largely filtered through us audiences.

Of course Christians can be persecuted. Any minority is likely to face some level of persecution.

But in the US, it is so commonplace, so entrained in our society that it's hard to take the persecution claim seriously, particularly when weilded in response to things like bakers and their cake businesses.

In fact, that's an example of American ideals working as applied to government action. In an otherwise zero sum game it seeks to shield the minority at the expense of the majority.

Re: China Cracks Down on Churches

#137

Post by lostlogin »

Aunche wrote: post #63
lgleason wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has been doing that for the past 30 years. It's not working.

The Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward happened before that. Up until Xi Jiping, China had been on track to being a freer country.

Not entirely accurate - Tiananmen square was just under 30 years ago, and that was a particularly low point. Though I suppose one could argue that pretty much anything after that was an improvement.

Re: China Cracks Down on Churches

#138

Post by krapp »

somethingle234 wrote: post #98
krapp wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "accepting" a faith? Accepting its tenets as true, or accepting the presence of its adherents?

My use of English isn't very good, I apologize. Let me give a thought experiment. Let's say: one religion believes that the person who leaves that religion should be killed Should I be ok with the person with this religion? Should I do something about this? I want to say there are good practices and bad practices. But our ideology is to accept all of them. That's not good.

Religions don't believe things, people believe things. Many religions, if the text of their holy books are taken literally, support violence, sacrifice, slavery, etc. And religions are practiced in different ways in different times, and different places. Not every religious person is an extremist.

My opinion is that you should judge people by the way they actually behave, not by the worst possible interpretation of how their religion says they should behave. Many people follow supposedly "violent" religions peacefully alongside other faiths.

Post reply on HN