January 28, 2002

8:23 AM

Speaking of bibles, a man gets 2 years in prison in China for smuggling them to an underground Christian organization. Nothing like religious tolerance.
posted by catatonic (85 comments total)

You're right, this is nothing like religious tolerance. The Chinese government is not exactly a spearhead for religious tolerance.
posted by starvingartist at 8:58 AM on January 28, 2002

Tskkk, Tskkk. Two years for propagating peace, mercy, and love.
posted by aaronshaf at 9:05 AM on January 28, 2002

relatively speaking, he probably got off lightly.
posted by Frasermoo at 9:05 AM on January 28, 2002

I feel we've tolerated religion long enough.

But, realistically, the guy knew the risks when he decided to do this. I'm not sure that he deserves any special consideration.
posted by UncleFes at 9:17 AM on January 28, 2002

Two years doesn't have much on this

But who's counting right?
posted by Jevon at 9:29 AM on January 28, 2002

Good. Idiot.
posted by Harry Hopkins' Hat at 9:42 AM on January 28, 2002

yes, he knew the risks, and he embraced them gladly...but what does that say about you?
posted by bunnyfire at 9:50 AM on January 28, 2002

Two years for illegal business operations.
posted by dai at 9:50 AM on January 28, 2002

A former babysitter of ours (who in general practiced a pretty obnoxious brand of evangelical Christianity) went to China after college to proselytize (though of course she told a different story to the Chinese authorities). She knew it was illegal and treated it as an undercover assignment. She met with people in secret, smuggled bibles, adopted cover stories, the whole spy bit. It was all theoretically justified because, well, anything was justified for God. The whole time she was there I was torn between worrying about her and hoping she'd get caught, spanked and sent home. She was one of the most naive people I've ever met, generally, and I thought the whole thing was pretty distasteful. And she was just one of hundreds or thousands of foolish, naive American college kids and recent grads that do this every year. I think the churches and religious organizations that send people like her into such a situation deserve some close inspection.

Two years for propagating peace, mercy, and love.

No, two years for propagating Christianity. Not equivalent to peace, mercy and love.
posted by rodii at 9:51 AM on January 28, 2002

an idiot? for standing up for what he believes in the face of inordinate risk?

i guess you're right. good thing we live in a country founded by sensible people.
posted by grabbingsand at 9:54 AM on January 28, 2002

yes, he knew the risks, and he embraced them gladly...but what does that say about you?

That I would never risk my freedom in order to smuggle my favorite book of fairytales into China.
posted by Harry Hopkins' Hat at 9:56 AM on January 28, 2002

what does that say about you?

It says nothing about me. I'm neither Christian nor Chinese.
posted by UncleFes at 10:00 AM on January 28, 2002

That I would never risk my freedom in order to smuggle my favorite book of fairytales into China.

Yet I know you realize that the Christians who go over to China for mission work do not consider the Bible their favorite book of fairytales. For Christians, the Bible is an absolute truth and the Word of God, something that our postmodern culture rarely believes in anymore with all of our cultural relativism. We would rather tell everybody to worship who they want and what they want but keep it to themselves. Yet if we're happy with keeping our beliefs and opinions to ourselves and think the world will be a better place if we all just keep our beliefs to ourselves, do we truely believe in an absolute truth? I am not spotlighting Christianity here, but rather our loss of valueing an absolute truth.

It says nothing about me. I'm neither Christian nor Chinese.

You're right, but do you believe your faith, whether that is atheistic or theistic, enough to put your life on the line?
posted by crog at 10:09 AM on January 28, 2002

...Word of God, something that our postmodern culture rarely believes in anymore with all of our cultural relativism. We would rather tell everybody to worship who they want and what they want but keep it to themselves.

That's not cultural relativism; it's people noticing that much of what was previously inexplicable has, in fact, been explained and living your life as dictated by an outdated book that contradicts itself doesn't make sense. Fundamentalists are either too dim to question or schizo-affective. Either way, sensible people shouldn't have to put up with them. While I recognize that it's dangerous for a government to incarcerate people for their beliefs, I can't help but not care-- just as I wish that every Mormon and Jehovah's Witness that's ever woken me up on Saturday morning is institutionalized somewhere.
posted by Harry Hopkins' Hat at 10:31 AM on January 28, 2002

Hmm. I think it's fairly obvious that he, and those thousands/millions (they don't count underground churches hugely accurately) know the risks. According to the law of his land he should be killed for what he believes in. I think the question is whether we agree that 'smuggling a fairy tale' deserves death/imprisonment. I don't. From your subsequent post (while I was previewing this) you do.

Let's try to stop insulting each other with quite such vicious glee.
posted by nedrichards at 10:34 AM on January 28, 2002

It's interesting how the people who advocate religious pluralism and moral relativism absolutely detest the Christian religion. But the other religions, well they're ok, we can tolerate those without snide remarks.
posted by aaronshaf at 10:38 AM on January 28, 2002

Ned, you're right about the insults -- they're really starting to grate. The naked display of anti-religious bigotry is turning into a daily occurence on Metafilter. It's sickening, and dispiriting for someone who believes in American ideals of tolerance and religious freedom.

Harry Hopkins' Hat? You're a bigot.
posted by dhartung at 10:44 AM on January 28, 2002

Harry Hopkins' Hat? You're a bigot.

Yes, I'm predjudiced against people who think that the Earth is 6,000 years old, dinosaur bones were put in the ground by a supernatural evil to test faith and think that I should believe it as well.

As for your charge of "cultural relativism," (nice hate-radio catchphrase, BTW) it doesn't hold. If you can't accept certain scientific truths, I don't care about your welfare, and I don't care what religion you are, Christian or non. As I said previously, being a fundamentalist (notice that I didn't specify what kind) means that you are either irretrievably ignorant or tending towards the schizophrenic. Either way, it's not my job to deal with you.
posted by Harry Hopkins' Hat at 10:57 AM on January 28, 2002

Just like the two missionaries who got caught in Afghanistan -- they accepted the risk, were caught according to the rules of their host "nation," and then were treated as heroes when they arrived back in the States. Foolish. I understand that christians want to "spread the word," but I truly don't understand their desire to do so in very, very dangerous places, when potential beneficiaries of their preaching & teaching reside much closer here in the States, or in countries that aren't hostile to such actions.
posted by davidmsc at 10:58 AM on January 28, 2002

Yes, but was the man in China a fundamentalist with those beliefs (the nominal subject of the thread)? Am I (a Christian) a fundamentalist with those beliefs?

If it's not your job to deal with me then at least you could leave me alone, after all I bet you wish the Mormons/Jehova's witnesses did to you on that Sunday morning. :-]

Sweeping generalisations just make everyone angry.

and davidmsc, Li Guangqiang was from Hong Kong.
posted by nedrichards at 11:02 AM on January 28, 2002

You're right, but do you believe your faith, whether that is atheistic or theistic, enough to put your life on the line?

Die for secular humanistic libertarianism? I'd have to think on that. But almost certainly it/they would never call on me to do so. That's sort of the beauty of it :)

There are things I would die for, if necessary. Mostly, they are certain people. There are a great many more things I would fight for. There are very few things for which I would knowingly put myself in the rather stupid personal position this guy did. His religion really doesn't have anything to do with it. I mean, if he was smuggling drugs, would we be talking? He got caught breaking an explicit Chinese law, and now he will be penalized according to their proscription. To assume that because he was acting out of religious intent somehow provides him immunity or makes his incarceration injust... well, isn't that bigotry of a different stripe?
posted by UncleFes at 11:06 AM on January 28, 2002

With all the advances made by China recently, i.e. strong economy, hosting the Olympics in 2008, you would think they would lighten up on religion. But, religion continues to be a major threat to the status quo, I guess. However, if history is any guide, the time is on the side of the grass-root faithfuls, not the communist dictatorship.

But does anyone else thinks that the Chinese gov't are going about it the wrong way? I mean, if they really wanted to make religion irrelevent, they ought to have taken a que from Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and give their people too much religious freedom.
posted by Rastafari at 11:09 AM on January 28, 2002

I'm not sure about Jehovah's Witnesses (they tend to stay away from Mormons), but Mormon missionaries tend to just say thank you and move along if you're not interested... and as most tracting happens progressively across large areas (I was a missionary myself a number of years ago), it's a fair bet that you won't be disturbed again for another year or so -- more even if you tend to be out of the house.

At any rate, I pray for the day when the PRC chooses to be more tolerant of religion. Of course, I believe religion is best served when it enters the country through its front doors.

I hope this person survives their sentance... and returns home healthy and all the wiser.
posted by silusGROK at 11:18 AM on January 28, 2002

I am not spotlighting Christianity here, but rather our loss of valueing an absolute truth.

The problem here is the choice of truth being dubbed "absolute." The bible is a fairly good source of moral parables that are valuable for their underlying principles. But the facts and figures involved are way off and largely have no bearing on the message contained in the book. Therefore, the important 'truth' is subjective: it is one's interpretation of the stories NOT the facts and figures. Religious moderates tend to be of this opinion.

The other issue is the missionary mindset. I don't think any religion should set out to convert others to its beliefs. Judiasm got this part right. They don't try to convert people and they make it pretty tough to convert if you do want to. I respect that...even if I don't generally support the idea of religion.
posted by plaino at 11:21 AM on January 28, 2002

As I said previously, being a fundamentalist (notice that I didn't specify what kind) means that you are either irretrievably ignorant or tending towards the schizophrenic. Either way, it's not my job to deal with you.

Ignoring the sweeping maliciousness of this comment, I would say that this opinion constitutes a form of fundamentalism just as pernicious as that which it purports to condemn.
posted by Skot at 11:24 AM on January 28, 2002

well, I for one think it's idiotic to put people in jail for their beliefs, especially when they're perfectly harmless. If people aren't interested in the scientific information, no amount of laws is going to make them so. And persecuting christians is basically playing right into their hand, as the whole thing is about martyrdom, or at least was in the beginning - protestantism kind of softened the rules so the idea of giving up everything material, turning to god over family etc, was declared unnecessary.

Once christianity became too popular, it was impossible for all to live the martyr's ascetic lifestyle, so the church became two-tiered - priests who had truly turned to god, and regular folk who turned to priests. Protestants wanted all equal, but realized attempting to make all priestly was impossible, so family & wealth became ok. And it's been softening up ever since so that most people who call themselves christians today are basically just concerned with people being nice to each other, and having a good life, etc.

but persecution reawakens the martyr side of things, and strengthens the beliefs by giving them a cause & common goal. If it's just not taken seriously, it'll die of natural causes eventually. Or not, as people are weird and like stories and stuff. But who cares, as long as no one's forced to believe or persecuted for heresy or whatever...
posted by mdn at 11:30 AM on January 28, 2002

The Chinese government is a cruel and dangerous Communist dictatorship. Regardless of your stand on the Bible, this should just point out their unwillingness to allow their people to learn and believe anything outside the party line. The US is constantly assailed for talking morality; where is the outrage at forced ChiCom 'morality'? I thought there was a general consesus that the world would be a better place with the free and open exchange of information and ideas.
posted by Mack Twain at 11:30 AM on January 28, 2002

If something is of value... if you really believe it will change the world... then I would say you have an obligation to share it.

We don't mind when politicos try to sway us... or when commercials do... but somehow religious persuasion is in poor taste.

Looks like a double standard.

I, for one, will continue to tell friends about my beliefs... and will not apologize for the proselyting I did while I served two years as a full-time missionary.

I treated people with respect, and allowed them the space to believe what they wished... sure, I knocked on a few doors, and stopped a few people in the street. But a gracious "no thank you" sent me and my partner on my way.

Occasionally, we were even invited in. Which made all the refusals worth it.

And when others want to share their beliefs with me, I'm game. It's part of being human... this sociality thing isn't always convenient, but it is a great medium of progress.
posted by silusGROK at 11:35 AM on January 28, 2002

Hear, hear, Skot. And as I've noted, this has become a distasteful trend on MeFi: as crash MeTa'd just a couple of days ago. Not that it ended up being that great a discussion.

Harry's "Good. Idiot" is about as chilling as anything John Ashcroft's ever said. Probably more, because Ashcroft hasn't actually recommended imprisoning atheists; but Harry seems just fine with the vice versa.

The entire point of fundamentals of liberty such as the First Amendment is the Voltairean principle of disagreeing with what someone says, but defending to the death their right to say it. Nations that violate this freedom deserve calumny -- even, preferably, ostracization. It would be nice if some of the human-rights bleating that's coming out of the press over the exceedingly well-treated Gitmo detainees were directed towards the nose of the Chinese leaders, though since the person being arrested is a Christian, obviously the Harry Hopkinses of the world are not only likely to fail to shed a tear, they may cheer the arrest and take it as an opportunity to jeer the arrestee. A direction of demagoguery which should make anyone uncomfortable.
posted by dhartung at 11:36 AM on January 28, 2002

I still don't see it as a religious issue per se. The contraband is secondary to the crime of smuggling, and to the question of his willfully breaking a law he was well aware of to supply materials to an organization that is considered illegal and dangerous. If the cargo were guns, and the receivers were thieves, we'd have never heard this story. Now it may be that the law is a bad one; it almost certainly is a stupid one from the vantage of social welfare and law enforcement. But in the end it was this man's choice to violate it, and now he must face the consequences of that, regardless of how we feel about it. That is how law, and sovereignty, work.
posted by UncleFes at 11:42 AM on January 28, 2002

I don't do it regularly, but I have to concur with UncleFes... this (the article, and the issue it raises) isn't about religion, but about smuggling and/or sedition.

Of course, the thread it spawned is certainly about religion. Go figure.

And MDN... since when are ideas necessarily "harmless"? If I were authoritarian (and I'm not -- no matter what the test said), I'd certainly be keen to know what folks were thinking... of course, squelching novel thought has a nasty habit of encouraging it... So it's a tricky thing no matter what.
posted by silusGROK at 11:58 AM on January 28, 2002

You do realise they kill people for the crime of believing in Jesus over there. Many of the evangelists(the native ones) are teenage girls who know very well they will never marry, and will most likely get caught, and thrown in jail at the least....

Believe what you will, but many of you are applauding a very repressive government that would have thrown most of you in the slammer for something a very long time ago.

Please don't make me laugh at you when you claim to be in favor of freedom of thought if you are going to make light of the persecution of Chinese Christians.
posted by bunnyfire at 12:23 PM on January 28, 2002

I can't believe that there are people who believe that ANY amount of public proselytizing is acceptable. What if someone woke you up to tell you about Spiderman comics and claimed that they were non-fiction?

I find the whole notion that Christians think that I even might want to hear their dreck incredibly insulting.

As for disagreeing with someone but defending their right to say it: nuts to that. If they're silenced, that's one less person who disagrees with me.
posted by Harry Hopkins' Hat at 12:38 PM on January 28, 2002

If they're silenced, that's one less person who disagrees with me.
I do give you points for continuing the traditions of the New Deal.
posted by thirteen at 12:41 PM on January 28, 2002

this (the article, and the issue it raises) isn't about religion, but about smuggling and/or sedition

You're trying to equate this to sneaking around with weapons or drugs or stolen loot? It's ony "smuggling" because Bibles are illegal, and they are only because the government does not like the ideas expressed therein -- not because it advocates overthrowing the government or undermining their authority in any way, but because it advocates that there is something more that than the great PRC that people can believe in.

And sedition? Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state, or such insurrection or rebellion? Being a Christian and wishing to read the Bible or provide a Bible to other believers is tantamount to inciting rebellion against their authority of the state?

I'm continually interested in the dichotomy between the opinions on Chinese Christians and Chinese Falun Gong members, or any other disallowed group in Chinese culture. The Falun Gong are a persecuted minority who may be nuts, but do not deserve the widespread imprisonment, torture and death that the PRC government regularly imposes upon them for merely practicing their faith. They may practice self-immolation, even on children, but that's just what they do.

The Christians, on the other hand, are stupid, fairy-tale believing fundamentalist idiots who are willfully breaking the law and ought to incur the full wrath of the Chinese government for doing such outrageous things as owning or passing along the foundational documents of their faith.

The basic question of this is how much freedom you believe people are entitled to as a matter of humanity. Should they be allowed to believe whatever they choose, religiously speaking? Should they be allowed to pursue the tenets of that faith without restriction until or unless they do something to legitimately interfere with the rights of others?

If so, then the Chinese laws which would allow for imprisonment of someone for smuggling Bibles or attending a religious meeting are anathema to the very concepts of freedom and human rights. If not, then you believe that governments have a legitimate right to control the individual down to dictating what they can and cannot believe, and that is a very scary, dangerous and difficult position to hold.

And Harry Hopkins Hat, you are, indeed, a bigot and an intolerant, prejudiced person whose selfishness runs counter to the liberties upon which this nation was founded.
posted by Dreama at 12:42 PM on January 28, 2002

... none of which is relevant to the story at hand. And no one's applauding. The Chinese have the right and responsiblity within their borders to make and enforce laws, whatever you think of them personally or spiritually. And Christians are not being singled out for special treatment - ask the Dalai Lama, or the Falun Gong, or any other religious group in China. Chinese choose to become Christians, this guy chose to bring them bibles, and they are all well aware of the consequences.

Hey, it's a stupid law. It's undemocratic, unfair, repressive and, ultimately, self-defeating. But in the end, it's their law. That they enforce it is not in itself shocking.

Perhaps a better solution than smuggling bibles would be to offer to remove Chinese Christians out of China...? To a place where they would be free to worship as they saw fit. It is something that the Chinese government might even overlook, or aid.
posted by UncleFes at 12:42 PM on January 28, 2002

Well, mister hat, comes the revolution, when we are all silenced, what will you say to that? Nothing? Oh, that's right! Nothing! party line, and that is all!
posted by bunnyfire at 12:42 PM on January 28, 2002

Um, mine was a response to Bunnyfire's. Slow typist :)
posted by UncleFes at 12:44 PM on January 28, 2002

Harry Hopkins' Hat - so you think it is a good thing that government has the right to imprison someone because he is trying to exercise his (in this case, lack of) right to free speech / religion? Maybe you should go live in China; it sounds more in line with your ideals than does a country that values men's rights to believe whatever they wish.

I'm sure if he were trying to smuggle in copies of Darwin's theories and was arrested, you would have a totally opposite opinion. I agree with Dhartung - you're a bigot.

Any snarky responses can be sent to my email address. If you choose to defend your position rationally, then post away.
posted by catatonic at 12:45 PM on January 28, 2002

a bigot and an intolerant, prejudiced
when we are all silenced, what will you say to that
you're a bigot
Maybe you should go live in China

Goats being got all over the place today. Lighten!
posted by UncleFes at 12:53 PM on January 28, 2002

What amazes me about these religion threads is how vehemently and mean-spiritedly people attack religion. It's as though their intent is to inflict pain and humilation on any devout believers who happen to be reading. i can't think of any other issue that arouses such viciousness.

What is it about religion in general, and Christianity in particular, that arouses such ire in some of you? it's almost as if some of you feel threatened by religious devotion. it can't be just the evangelism that bothers you because evangelism, at worst, is on about the same moral plane as commercial advertising. i've yet to see the same level of ad homenim attacks on advertisers that i've seen on devout believers.

My own theory is that many of those who rush to attack religious devotion are deeply uncomfortable with some aspect of their own lives. i just don't know how else to explain why otherwise open-minded, progressive people become reactionary bigots at the mention of religion.
posted by boltman at 1:01 PM on January 28, 2002

Perhaps a better solution than smuggling bibles would be to offer to remove Chinese Christians out of China...?

An then a good 60% of Chinese would all of a sudden be Christians... See you later PRC
posted by Jevon at 1:06 PM on January 28, 2002

i just don't know how else to explain why otherwise open-minded, progressive people become reactionary bigots at the mention of religion.

Not uncomfortable. Personally, I am often angered by the overt attacks religion makes on science and reason, and the smug arrogance that often characterizes the devout (present company excepted, of course).

I also object to the cheapness that religion places on human life. For the religious, this life is simply a transition - the real life is the hereafter; but for an athiest, this life is all there is - making it infinitely more important that we treat each other as well as we can while we are alive. The crime of murder is subsequently that much more heinous to an athiest, and the price of one's own life, and that of others, is that much higher. God typically cares not for human life - he disposes of it as he sees fit, as have historically his followers.

These are my own ideas; I'm not a hardass about them :)
posted by UncleFes at 1:12 PM on January 28, 2002

The crime of murder is subsequently that much more heinous to an athiest, and the price of one's own life, and that of others, is that much higher

ah, certainly one's own life would become more precious, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the lives of others become more valuable. Why wouldn't they become less valuable since there is no objective standard to value them by? for example, would a suicidal person's life have less value because he valued it less? would a criminal's life have less value because society valued it less? would Bill Gates' life have more value because the market values it more?
posted by boltman at 1:24 PM on January 28, 2002

Boltman, good point.
But turn it around, and it still works. Next week in church, stand up and say, "Hey, what about the rights of atheists?" and see how many people get their feathers ruffled.
The problem is, Atheists are for the most part not taken seriously by Christians.... you know, the old "They'll find out the truth when they die" argument. So atheists must resort to constantly being in attack mode.
Me? I'm an atheist, but I usually just read this kind of thread and giggle about it.
posted by bradth27 at 1:29 PM on January 28, 2002

These are my own ideas; I'm not a hardass about them

UncleFes, I appreciate that these are your opinions of god/religion. However, they are not mine. They are not the opinions of most christians, certainly not the ones I associate with. Try not to paint us with such a broad brush, eh?

The religion bashing in this thread has been particularly vicious, even by Metafilter standards.
posted by ratbastard at 1:31 PM on January 28, 2002

i just don't know how else to explain why otherwise open-minded, progressive people become reactionary bigots at the mention of religion.

Why do some people like myself take issue so strongly with religion? Because I dislike how fundamentalists so often discount information based not on its veracity but whether or not it's ideologically convenient.

Consider evolution. The fundamentalist Christian can be presented with overwhelming scientific data that evolution is fact. However, the Bible says that the Earth is 6,000 years old, so the Fundy begins his argument by saying "Evolution does not happen. I must prove this," rather than formulating an opinion based on the available verifiable information.

I also get positively livid concerning the words of Christ and the modern people claiming to follow his teachings. Read all the direct quotes from Jesus in the New Testament-- he essentially said "help the poor; you can't serve two masters (wealth and God), etc." Then reconcile it with modern day fundamentalist Christians who inexplicably think that Jesus wants a bigger defense budget, corporate welfare and jack shit for the poor. The Bible doesn't say anything about US military supremacy. It's another case of having an inclination and using a flimsy scaffolding to justify it.

YOU want to keep your wife barefoot and pregnant, not Jesus.

YOU want more bombs and dead foreigners, not Jesus.

YOU couldn't care less if some people are not adequately provided for, not Jesus.

That's why I dislike fundamentalist Christians. The arguments against fundamentalist Muslims, Hindus, Swedenborgians and Saturn Owners are pretty analagous.
posted by Harry Hopkins' Hat at 1:31 PM on January 28, 2002

no objective standard

But a great deal of subjective standard. Although often questioned, it is rare that a person does not value someone else's life more than their own. Yes, the subjective value of one's own life would increase, but all lives that one values are also similarly increased. And, if you consider life a good (in the economic sense), then by removing the afterlife aspect, life itself becomes more scarce. That in itself increases its value.

There would be fluctuations as you describe, but I believe the baseline itself is higher. There is no real reason why morality, and moral behavior, must be based in religion and not secular common weal.

Try not to paint us with such a broad brush, eh?

I do try not to, and I try to never resort to personal attack. I don't feel that I have in this thread.
posted by UncleFes at 1:32 PM on January 28, 2002

Now it may be that the law is a bad one... But in the end it was this man's choice to violate it, and now he must face the consequences of that, regardless of how we feel about it. That is how law, and sovereignty, work.

Would you act as removed and understanding if the issue were someone arrested in a religious country for having a copy of Emile or Origin of Species, or whatever? The point is that the law is wrong, which is no doubt part of the point of those who smuggle bibles in: getting caught brings attention to the law.

I personally agree with your assessment of religion (even though you can't spell atheist), and for those reasons commonly get involved in discussions with theists (including those who knock on the door) but I've also found that it's a small percentage who will change their minds. In the end you have to make peace with the fact that human beings in general are weird, a great portion have strange beliefs (whether or not they match a particular religion), and many are completely irrational and still not bad people.

Proselytizing may be annoying, but lots of people go on about stuff you think is dumb - that's part of human interaction. You spend life looking for other people you can relate to. I'm probably more annoyed if someone is going on about football or dieting or plenty of other boring topics they take far too seriously... And yeah, religion seems to have a greater impact on the world in general, etc, but eventually i think you have to accept that it's part of the deal, and work to make your voice heard without getting too bitchy. Not saying it's effortless or that I'm there myself, but do think it's the right way to go, ultimately.
posted by mdn at 1:37 PM on January 28, 2002

I didn't say you were making personal attacks, UncleFes. I disagree with pretty much everything you've said. But at least you've been civil. Just please realize that not all christians are fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are a very loud and very visible minority. But Jerry Falwell doesn't speak for me any more than Osama bin-Laden speaks for the average Muslim. Harry, you hearing this?
posted by ratbastard at 1:47 PM on January 28, 2002

Would you act as removed and understanding if... The point is that the law is wrong

I would try to. And yes, we believe that the law is wrong. But does violating it aid in ending that law, or does it (like so much before) resolve and harden the position of the lawgivers? Or would Chinese Christians have been better served by an effort on the part of their brethren elsewhere to convince the Chinese government that Christianity is not a threat to them and to work toward reconciliation? The best way to fight an evil is often not to beat it, but co-opt it. Isn't it better to succeed than exemplify?

including those who knock on the door

I am forbidden from doing that anymore :)

it's a small percentage who will change their minds

Agreed. That's why (a) I'm not a hardass about it, (b) theist v. atheist arguments often devolve so quickly, and (c) we would be better off searching for more thoughtful ways of fighting these sorts of repression than smuggling bibles.

lots of people go on about stuff you think is

mea culpa :)

Jeez, whatever happened to "i before e except before c"? Sometimes I wish I was a Spanish speaker, at least that language makes grammatical sense.
posted by UncleFes at 1:56 PM on January 28, 2002

Ratbastard- I understand that perfectly, and every harsh thing that I've written here was directed at fundamentalists and not average Christians.

I recognize that calling the Bible smuggler a fundamentalist is an assumption. However, I feel that it's probably accurate.
posted by Harry Hopkins' Hat at 1:59 PM on January 28, 2002

Um, make that "...after c." No wonder my editors hated me.
posted by UncleFes at 2:03 PM on January 28, 2002

I recognize that calling the Bible smuggler a fundamentalist is an assumption. However, I feel that it's probably accurate.

Well, then that's a prejudice, isn't it? How is that any different from saying, "Well, I assume the guys who robbed the liquor store were [insert ethnic minority here]?"

Anyway, these statements (1, 2) don't seem to be aimed at just fundamentalists.
posted by ratbastard at 2:09 PM on January 28, 2002

Christ understood that his followers would be hated. (but that's not to say everyone who calls themself a christian follows Christ)

The world would love you if you belonged to it, but you don't. I chose you to come out of the world, and so it hates you.
-- Jesus, from John 15:19
posted by razorwriter at 2:28 PM on January 28, 2002

We don't mind when politicos try to sway us... or when commercials do... but somehow religious persuasion is in poor taste.

Speak for yourself. I am just as upset (if not more so) when politicos try to "sway" (read: lie to) me. Or when commericals try to convince me that my life is not worth living if I don't use a certain product. And it bugs me when people think their god is so important to me that they must force it into my life.

"When I'm drivin' in my car, and the man come on the radio / He's tellin' me more and more about some useless information / Supposed to fire my imagination"—(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction
posted by terrapin at 2:29 PM on January 28, 2002

"... that they must force it into my life ... "

There are a lot of things -- if you're willing to lower the standard enough -- which are forced into our lives.

I guess that I've just come to expect that being part of a society necessarily puts me in the paths of others... maybe you should just put your walkman back on, zone back out.
posted by silusGROK at 2:35 PM on January 28, 2002

Does freedom of speach extend to going door to door and bothering people?

Could i go from house to house trying to get people to join a religeon I just created, without going to jail?



Whenever I think of fundamentalists this short story
The Moral Virologist By Greg Egan
comes to mind
posted by Iax at 2:37 PM on January 28, 2002

The gentleman in question was smuggling Bibles published by Living Stream Ministry, an Orange County-based evangelical organization. As their spokesman points out in this article, they are indeed a fundamentalist group.
posted by thomas j wise at 2:43 PM on January 28, 2002

I guess that I've just come to expect that being part of a society necessarily puts me in the paths of others... maybe you should just put your walkman back on, zone back out.

Vis10n: Your comment was a blanket statment that said that "we" don't mind when politicos or commericals try and make us do things we wouldn't under other circumstance want to do. But that somehow the mindless masses aren't as forgiving when it comes to religion.

My reply is that I am JUST as annoyed when ANYONE tries to tell me what I should or shouldn't think or do.

From there you tried to paint a picture of me as somehow being uninterested in life around me. How funny, and completely wrong. Perhaps you should check out user profiles and read my site before you make such ignorant (and mean-spirited) assumptions.
posted by terrapin at 2:50 PM on January 28, 2002

...at least that language makes grammatical sense

Grammar is a crutch for weak minds.
posted by aramaic at 3:11 PM on January 28, 2002

I don't knock on any doors prosetelysing. It ain't my bag. But in China it's the authorities that knock on the door and drag the Christians out of their homes and their secret worship meetings....

I wonder how many years it will be before it happens where I live, at this rate.
posted by bunnyfire at 3:30 PM on January 28, 2002

don't worry bunnyfire, on the new Schedule for Revolution v.49.8.b, [in appendix 4a] i just received, politicians and tv psychics are WAAAAY ahead of christians on the "drag from homes" list.

;-)

People, aren't we bored with this yet? me personally, i've met my quota for religious wars on MeFi this month, i'm waiting for the 1st of next month.
posted by th3ph17 at 3:53 PM on January 28, 2002

The notion that Americans should honor the laws of dictatorships abroad is just silly. Americans should violate them with inpunity and the government of America should gleeful crush any efforts of the dictators to respond.

I can't wait for the day that 19 year old American girls can hang out at the pool of the Hilton Mecca in bikinis eating cheeseburgers and driking gin and tonics while idiot Saudis froth in impotent rage outside the fence.

America can and should stand for freedom and support the efforts of Americans to destroy non-freedom wherever it lurks. Although I'm neither Mormon nor an evangelical, I recognize them for quintessential expressions of Americanism and powerfully effective tools for overcoming savageably backward governments and cultures wherever they lie.
posted by MattD at 4:00 PM on January 28, 2002

Yeah, but why go all the way to Mecca when you can make people froth in rage right here in America? Just take the tops off the bikinis, make the cheeseburgers into vealburgers and replace the gin and tonics with blunts.
posted by boaz at 4:10 PM on January 28, 2002

I'm certainly not for religion, but I agree with whoever said it up top that the thing about the "First Amendment is the Voltairean principle of disagreeing with what someone says, but defending to the death their right to say it. "
I would be seriously worried and upset if the USA started locking up people for promoting any religion of any type. I may not agree with Christianity (in particular) but I damn well believe in their right to exist and spread the word, as long as they don't interfere with the State. (There's the rub...but that's for another thread.)
The problem with this guy and why I don't feel for him is that he went into China, expressly to break their law. He knew the risks and did it anyway. Now he has to pay the price. Yes, it's a horrible law, but it's their law none the less. Our forefathers did the same thing when they signed the Declaration of Independence. They went against the law and knew the consequences and luckly they won and got what they wanted. As a result, we live in a country that allows for people like Harry Hopkins Hat and Bunnyfire to express themselves with impunity. (Not to pick on you guys, you're just the ones that came to mind.) But the point is that our forefathers were willing to pay the price. So must this guy.
posted by aacheson at 4:26 PM on January 28, 2002

Not to go too off topic, but I am glad this thread went from giant Troll to semi-courteous discussion.

The notion that Americans should honor the laws of dictatorships abroad is just silly. Americans should violate them with inpunity and the government of America should gleeful crush any efforts of the dictators to respond.

MattD, I have to disagree with you. We still live in a world where Nation-States derive and control the borders of the world. While I love America, the idea of actively proselytizing outside the borders of the USA is distasteful to myself. I have had the fortune of traveling to 6 continents and there is nothing I like to do more than try to follow the local rules. When the locals find out that I am American, they inevitably ask me why I am following their rules. My answer is simple, I am a guest and I want to lead by example. I would rather have America a shining beacon that other nation-states can look up to than scores of Americans infiltrating other nation-states and trying to change them. That is not to say that I won’t share my experiences with others in hope of changing their views. I just am not in their face, I wait until they interact and make the first move. It seems that is the bigger issue here, if you can get past the trolling.
posted by plemeljr at 4:32 PM on January 28, 2002

The notion that Americans should honor the laws of dictatorships abroad is just silly

Let's see how you feel once Europe invades the US in order to end the death penalty and crushes your petty plutocracy in the interests of European social welfare.
posted by aramaic at 4:32 PM on January 28, 2002

Regarding travel and foreign laws: People go abroad with too many damn preconceptions, and end up wasting their money & pissing off the locals. IMHO, the three most spectacularly irritating groups of tourists (based on my observations in various parts of the world) are, in no particular order: Americans, British, Australians.

...with a second tier of irritation composed of French, Germans and Belgians. The most praiseworthy travellers, for me, seem to have been Norwegian.

Does this mean that Norwegians are all fabulous, and all Brits are bastards? Of course not. But certain countries seem to export irritating people with greater regularity than others (due in large part to the relative wealth of these nations), and it does not speak well of their civility as nations.

Is that fair? Of course not. But those "idiot Saudis" will tend to draw their concept of Westerners based on the ones they've seen taunting them at the Hilton Mecca. So don't be too surprised when they start picking up fanaticism. You would too, if the situation were reversed.

A little respect goes a long ways, keeps tourists out of foreign jails, and just generally makes things nicer. Respecting local laws is one way to do this, even if you disagree. If you disagree vehemently, I'd recommend simply not going. Nobody likes the party-crasher who spends their time complaining about the host, or whining about how they have a nicer TV back home.

...so don't go to China with the express purpose of pissing off your host. It's not cool.
posted by aramaic at 4:46 PM on January 28, 2002

(Uh, I didn't mean to imply that this particular guy was actually a tourist, as he obviously wasn't.)
posted by aramaic at 4:52 PM on January 28, 2002

aramaic...I would put Germans above the French. Nothing says welcome to Europe by being puched around by large Germans. I would and Canadians to your second tier, they spend so much energy trying to distance themselves they become targets and annoying. Damn Flags.

;->
posted by plemeljr at 5:02 PM on January 28, 2002

So why are Norweigans so polite? (of course, like you pointed out, this is non germane to the discussion, because the prisoner isn't a foreigner) Seems the richer the nation, or the more dominant the language, the more offensive the guest. [I also have to wonder what was the point of the thread, as all one can mostly say is that this is one of the many things the Chinese government does that we all disapprove of. Well, at least 99.9% of us.]
posted by Charmian at 5:41 PM on January 28, 2002

Could i go from house to house trying to get people to join a religeon I just created, without going to jail?
are you honestly asking? Do you really think you could be sent to jail for handing out flyers? Yes, you can start your own religion! As long as you don't advocate already illegal activities, you can try to make people believe patently false claims. Mormonism and Scientology were both invented/ discovered by Americans.

The notion that Americans should honor the laws of dictatorships abroad is just silly
wait a minute: this article was about a chinese man who broke the laws of his country to make a point. It's somewhat different if we come in from the outside and try to impose our belief systems on others.

I can't wait for the day that 19 year old American girls can hang out at the pool of the Hilton Mecca in bikinis eating cheeseburgers and driking gin and tonics while idiot Saudis froth in impotent rage outside the fence.
Like boaz pointed out, versions of these actions will upset americans, especially if they're done in a place considered holy - going topless to church would probably not be appreciated in most of this country.

It's a complicated issue; I guess I'm least likely to accept or back a restriction of information, literature or opinion, as in the case of this article. The suggestions you make are different. Regarding clothing and drugs, I'm personally fine without limitations, but I'm not sure I'd advocate for a national repeal of all laws regarding nudity and mind-altering substances. Long term (multi-generational) behavior of groups is not the same as the lifetime behavior of individuals, or more accurately, the minority of individuals who think those laws unnecessary. I think it's reasonable that a culture make it's own restrictions on those things.

The difference in gender is a different story. If women have to cover their faces, so should men; if women are laughing by the pool in bikinis, where are the boys in speedos?
posted by mdn at 6:22 PM on January 28, 2002

I think that the Bible smuggler was practicing civil disobedience, deliberately disobeying a law he disapproved of, and that he was prepared to take the legal consequences. Not so different, is it, from Martin Luther King, Jr.? And, I am appalled at the anti-Christian bigotry displayed by some on MetaFilter. There is a distinct double standard--Islam gets more respect here.
posted by Carol Anne at 6:33 PM on January 28, 2002

Someone on here said people get all hung up on evangelizing, but not advertising? Actually, attacks on corporate America happen with regularity on Metafilter. It's just that those same folks leading such attacks just aren't as eager to put their ten cents in during discussions of, say, AdCritic or music in advertising.

I presume, however, that the idea behind a presumed lack of a angry tone in discussions of advertising is that it is usually not quite as personal as evangelizing. That, however, is not always so true. (Wet wipes?) It's also not true that the extent of advertising in America hasn't affected the quality of life in the U.S., in ways comparable to the impact of organized religion. Actually, you're constantly bombarded with none-too-subtle advertising, wherever you go. It is the culture, to a large extent, and thus criticizing can seem akin to criticizing oxygen.
posted by raysmj at 6:36 PM on January 28, 2002

As long as nobody is being harmed in the process, I say do what you feel you must do.

If you know that what you are doing is illegal, you had better be prepared to face the consequences - even if you believe the law you are breaking is wrong.

And please spare the world another book deal if you're released.

That is all I have to say on the subject.
posted by tpoh.org at 8:01 PM on January 28, 2002

First, I'm opposed to any kind of bigotry be it religious or otherwise and what the Chinese government did to this gentleman certainly constitutes bigotry, therefore I feel catatonic and bunnyfire are correct in denouncing it.
I'm also a little fed up with the binary separation of religious camps into abortion-clinic bombing fundamentalists on one side and nihilistic secularists on the other. There's a lot of space in between, folks. Although Christianity has done a lot of damage over the milennia, it has also done a lot of good as have Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism.
For that matter so have atheists(hi Fes, hi mdn) and non-affiliated confused semi-diests like myself.
You or I may believe this gentleman is wrong in his beliefs, but as a libertarian, I will defend his and anyone elses right to be wrong.
posted by jonmc at 8:22 PM on January 28, 2002

I will defend his and anyone elses right to be wrong.

The line between wrong and stupid is a fine one, though, often. Wrong is OK, in my books. Stupid is not. There are far too many stupid people in the world. Stupid, violent, rule-fixated, tribally-inclined, self-absorbed, dirt stick stone stupid people. They are choking us all - the smart, the dumb, the drooling morons and the geniuses - all of us - to death.

It is debatable, of course, whether Xtians are stupid, as Harry would seem to have us believe, or the bible-smuggler guy was stupid, or the Chinese government was stupid, or all of the above. But a world in which things like this happen is clearly a world ruled by simpletons, cretins and stupidheads. And some of us here at MeFi get suckered into the vortex of stupidity by hopping up and down and taking sides! Oh, the humanity.

Thus endeth the sermon.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:34 PM on January 28, 2002

Perhaps a better solution than smuggling bibles would be to offer to remove Chinese Christians out of China...?

Perhaps the better solution -- absent the September 11 events -- would have been to offer to remove all of the women from Afghanistan.

Perhaps the better solution is to remove all of the Tibetans from Tibet and let China have their nation.

Perhaps the better solution is to remove all of the African-Americans from America?

Yes, better to remove the oppressed than to remove the oppression. The status quo deserves stability, the humans whose lives are regularly compromised by it do not.
posted by Dreama at 11:05 PM on January 28, 2002

better to remove the oppressed than to remove the oppression.

The status quo already has stability. Did this bible smuggler solve the problem of Christian persecution in China? No. If anything, he exacerbated it. Too many people would rather make statements, would rather hold placards and wave flags, than find realistic, practical solutions that actually help people. Do you know why? Because it's easier. It's easier to stand up and say "Free Speech Now!" than it is to say, ok, the Chinese are communist control freaks BUT I'm going to look for a solution (like getting Chinese Christians out of harms way) while I work slowly to move China towards a more free society by showing the world that a free society is best.

Which is better? That people die/are jailed for their beliefs so that we can point accusingly at China and say "bad country," or that persecuted Chinese Christians are removed from danger to a place where they can practice their religion safely and freely?

Sure, maybe it's realpolitik, and maybe it means we have to deal with guys/nations/groups who are not so nice, but sloganeering accomplishes zip most of the time.
posted by UncleFes at 6:43 AM on January 29, 2002

So, yes, to answer your question (finally) it is better short-term to remove the persecuted from the source of their persecution. There is no nobility in oppression, only continued suffering.
posted by UncleFes at 7:41 AM on January 29, 2002

A few examples of sloganeering that helped to accomplish a little more than zip:

"Quit India"
"We Shall Overcome"
"No Taxation Without Representation"
"Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death"
"And His Truth Goes Marching On"

And that's without even breaking a sweat.

How is it that so many (apparent) Americans here can be so blase about a tyrannical government persecuting one man among many for simply exercising his right to freedom of speech and conscience? Even among those posters who aren't outright hostile, there seems to be a distinct lack of moral outrage, and instead an attitude that the guy "knew what he was getting into" and therefore somehow deserves whatever he gets. Is this the attitude Americans had when people were being abused and arrested for sitting at the "inappropriate" lunch counters in the 1950s? After all, the lunch counters were clearly marked. And what did they expect to accomplish, anyway?

Slogans, by themselves, are just words. But slogans, and banners, and marching, and organizing - and yes, that includes handing out leaflets and going door to door - can make a difference. Courageous people like Li Guangqiang who risk their lives and freedom to follow their hearts and exercise their basic human rights can make a difference. That is, if we pay attention to what they do, and honor them for daring to do in the face of the dragon what anyone should be able to do, rather than yawning or spitting at them.

I am an atheist, and always have been. I am an American, and always have been. I have been a believer in liberal democracy even before I knew its name. I fully support Mr. Li's efforts to spread his faith, and those of his compatriots. I am ashamed that there are so many Americans who seem to have grown soft on liberty, and forgotten the core ideals of the American Revolution. It was a revolution not just for Americans, but for the whole world. In these times, especially, let us not forget that.
posted by skoosh at 7:07 PM on January 29, 2002

Skoosh, if the guy had been anything but a bible smuggler, of course they would have been outraged at his treatment...but he was in the service of his Lord, and we are on Metafilter, so of course most here wrote him off as a doofus.
My statements were merely meant that as Christians we understand that there are times we will be persecuted, jailed, and even at times martyred for our faith....as an American of course I am saddened by the fact that the Chinese people are denied basic human rights-in a lot of areas, not just those of faith.
I appreciated your post very much.
posted by bunnyfire at 3:43 AM on January 30, 2002

And that's without even breaking a sweat.

There’s a koan that says “The only thing stronger than a Buddha is a karma that is ripening.” All those things you mention were accompanied by both large support bases and practical political activity.

so blase about a tyrannical government persecuting one man among many for simply exercising his right to freedom of speech and conscience?

Because he doesn’t have that right, for one. The right to free speech in this context is an American, not Chinese, right. Rights are political structures. There are philosophical bases for the concept of human rights, but the rights we are speaking of are products of the American Constitution. IF this guy were an American citizen operating in America, we’d fight like dark knights on his behalf. Instead, he’s a Chinese operating in China with full knowledge of the potential for punishment. As mdn pointed out, this conflict breeds martyrs, not statesmen. That’s what he wanted to be, that’s what he became.

instead an attitude that the guy "knew what he was getting into" and therefore somehow deserves whatever he gets.

Yes to the latter, perhaps to the former. He certainly was aware of the potential for punishment, and acted anyway.

After all, the lunch counters were clearly marked. And what did they expect to accomplish, anyway?

Remember, we’re speaking from a perspective of American rights – Li had no such expectation if he was a Chinese citizen. But American blacks did have such an expectation. Different situations.

Courageous people like Li Guangqiang who risk their lives and freedom to follow their hearts and exercise their basic human rights can make a difference.

Indeed they can… but you still misunderstand the political nature of what constitutes a right. NO ONE HAS ANY RIGHTS… except those that are exchanged to them for responsibilities by their nation’s political structure. Does the man alone swimming in the middle of the ocean have a “right to life”? Of course not. Regardless of what we think, he will undoubtedly die.

I am ashamed that there are so many Americans who seem to have grown soft on liberty, and forgotten the core ideals of the American Revolution. It was a revolution not just for Americans, but for the whole world. In these times, especially, let us not forget that.

And I am ashamed that so many do not truly understand how fragile their rights are, believing that they are inherent and universal rather than political, local and, therefore, precious; that martyrdom is, in most cases, folly; that the American revolution was just that – an American revolution, stemming from a different culture and political circumstances than could ever be found in China, and that the best way to show China and the rest of the world the strength of our system is to lead by example, to be reasonable and practical in our work toward global acceptance of our model, and to judiciously pick our fights. And that means facing up to the realities of politics, the differences in our social-cultural-religious legacies, and working to solve the problem rather than create martyrs. Martyrs haven't solved the problems in places like Palestine, Ireland and Liberia, and there's no reason we should expect they would in China.
posted by UncleFes at 8:08 AM on January 30, 2002

so blase about a tyrannical government persecuting one man among many for simply exercising his right to freedom of speech and conscience?

Because he doesn’t have that right, for one. The right to free speech in this context is an American, not Chinese, right. Rights are political structures. There are philosophical bases for the concept of human rights, but the rights we are speaking of are products of the American Constitution.

Well, if you want to get legalistic about it, the People's Daily declared a couple of years ago that China was sincere in fulfilling its human rights obligations, noting that the government had recently signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as 16 other human rights documents. Article 18 of the Covenant states:

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

Article 19 states:

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

So whatever else may be true, the Chinese government has chosen to take on a legal obligation under international law to respect the very rights it has trampled in the case of Li Guangqiang.

Indeed they can… but you still misunderstand the political nature of what constitutes a right. NO ONE HAS ANY RIGHTS… except those that are exchanged to them for responsibilities by their nation’s political structure. Does the man alone swimming in the middle of the ocean have a “right to life”? Of course not. Regardless of what we think, he will undoubtedly die.

I readily concede that rights have little meaning outside of a social or political context. It does not follow, that one's rights are subject to veto by any person or group, certainly not the state, and not even the majority. The rights of minorities of every stripe often run counter to the wishes of a hostile majority. Does this mean that those rights do not exist? Of course not; that's why the ACLU defends the KKK's right to speak and assemble freely, even though the great majority of people in this country now loathe what the Klan says and perhaps wish that it wasn't allowed to say it. And of course, it's just silly to suppose that a government grants rights, for if so, what sort of philosophical recourse would Joe Sixpack have if the government decided he had no rights?

The government neither creates nor grants rights. Rather, it recognizes rights that individuals possess vis a vis other individuals and a priori of the government, and helps to instantiate them for individuals in society. It does not create them, it does not destroy them. At best, it can stick its fingers in its ears and do its best to ignore them.

... the best way to show China and the rest of the world the strength of our system is to lead by example , to be reasonable and practical in our work toward global acceptance of our model, and to judiciously pick our fights.

I've got no problem with that.

And that means facing up to the realities of politics, the differences in our social-cultural-religious legacies, and working to solve the problem rather than create martyrs. Martyrs haven't solved the problems in places like Palestine, Ireland and Liberia, and there's no reason we should expect they would in China.

On the contrary; martyrs become heros, and people become very attached to heros whose cause they share. Think of the Boston Massacre, or John Brown, or the firefighters of New York City. It is a precious first step in beginning a mass popular struggle. The problem is, as in Palestine and Northern Ireland, when the machinery of armed stuggle takes on a life of its own and starts opposing the end of the struggle, even though it's a necessary prerequisite to achieving any of its goals. I'm not aware that anyone in Liberia besides the rebel generals and their mercenaries wants anything but peace - what is the ideological dimension?

I am so glad catatonic posted this. I haven't thought this clearly about the nature of individual rights for a long time. Thank you.
posted by skoosh at 7:37 PM on January 31, 2002