What would you think if the government made a statement like this about your religion. “Every religion should carry out their activities according to the law and should never undermine national solidarity.” This statement was made by the Chinese Public Security Minister Meng Jianzhu during a visit to three monasteries.
Chinese government officials are visiting temples and making threats to monks and other citizens about the unrest in the region. The AP (Associated Press) is reporting:
Public Security Minister Meng Jianzhu announced that “patriotic education” classes would be expanded at monasteries, the Tibet Daily reported Tuesday.
Monks and nuns who refuse to cooperate can be jailed. The U.S. State Department said in its 2007 report on religious freedom around the world that dozens of Tibetan clergy were serving prison terms for their resistance to “patriotic” or political education.
Apparently the Chinese government leaders think patriotic or political education is the answer. Is “patriotic or political education” the 21st century political correct term for tortured until you agree with us or die?
What was the Olympic committee thinking when they decided to choose Beijing as the sight for the 2008 Olympics? Maybe they are going to add torture to event list. If that is the case, then China and the U.S. Waterboarding team can compete.
Thank you for visiting Expressing Opinions.
Tags: olympics
Entries (RSS)
March 26th, 2008 at 12:07 pm - Edit
I agree with the first bit of the sentence, but then again, my religion (such as it is) has a code of “do no harm” as the fundamental tenet, so breaking the law doesn’t come into it. That said, there are things I’d like to do, that are illegal, even though they harm nobody but myself. I’m all for laws against religions (or people) that try to force themselves on other people, but if I’m not hurting anyone else at all, or just myself, then I think I should have the right to do that.
For example, in the UK, a Sikh man is exempt from wearing a crash helmet on a motorbike, because of his turban. I think that that is right - if he goes flying off the motorbike and has an accident, he only hurts himself. I don’t see why I shouldn’t have the same right not to wear a helmet, though. I would only be hurting myself in the case of an accident, and I’m old enough and ugly enough to decide for myself that it’s a good/bad idea to wear/not wear a helmet. Of course I *would* wear a helmet, irrespective of the law and religious issues, but it’s the fact that that decision is made for me that bothers me.
China has national solidarity? Take down the Great (fire)Wall, let people move freely, and then see how much solidarity there is. At least where I live I’m relatively free.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:53 pm - Edit
We are free and not subjected to “patriotic or political education”. We may be subjected to biased views of others, but at least we can reject them, talk about it, and write what we think needs to be stated.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:26 am - Edit
Then the American government would have to cut my head off. While I submit to civil authority as the Bible states I should do, I will obey the Bible first. If the government made me do (or rather tried to make me) do something unbiblical, they could just cast me in to jail and I’d make them miserable with my singing (the Bible says I should make a joyful NOISE…and since I don’t sing well…). We are a free people, but I disagree that we are not subjected to a political education.
While I think teaching the children about the government is necessary, I don’t think that issues that adults vote on should make it into the classroom (at least not in elementary school).