Pages

Thursday, September 20, 2007

UN Stuff, Sept 20: Nelson Report, Frank Ching, UN Rejection

First, China responds with invective and bombast to Taiwan's latest defeat, this time in a committee. On the Taiwan issue, I say "Let China Speak!" Nothing makes them look worse than their own nasty Czechslovakia-must-be-blotted-out! rhetoric. AP via The International Herald Tribune tells the tale:

On Wednesday, the U.N. General Assembly's General Committee decided not to include a vote on admitting Taiwan into the world body on this year's General Assembly agenda.

Though the attempt was Taiwan's 15th failure to join the U.N. in as many years, the latest efforts have particularly agitated Beijing. The U.N. vote — and a public referendum on the issue scheduled for next year on Taiwan — are seen by Beijing as an attempt by Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian to undermine China's claims to sovereignty, and give a legal basis to the independence Taiwan has enjoyed in practice since the two sides split in a civil war 58 years ago.

Shortly after Wednesday's vote, China's U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, described Taiwan's U.N. entry bid as a plot to promote independence, and said Chen was using the issue to inflame tensions with Beijing as a way to improve his political standing in Taiwan.

"Instead of offering blessings to the Taiwan compatriots, these activities can only cause disastrous consequences," Xinhua, in a separate report, quoted Wang as saying. "We hope and believe that the Taiwan compatriots can clearly see Chen's ulterior motives."

The U.N. issue has emotional resonance among Taiwan's public. Taiwan, whose formal name is the Republic of China, was tossed out of the U.N. in 1971 as part of a deal to give the China seat to Beijing. At the time, both Taiwan and Beijing claimed to be China's sole legitimate government.

In recent years, Taiwan has dropped the claim and sought to emerge on the international stage as a separate country — a claim that Beijing rejects. The result has been an all-out campaign by Beijing to keep other countries from recognizing Taiwan and to pressure the island's few remaining diplomatic allies into withdrawing support.

Actually, not too bad a rendering of all that complicated history, and kudos to AP for taking a crack at illustrating the issues (unlike the recent TIME article). Still stuck in that "China and Taiwan split in 1949" -- thought Taiwan was part of Japan at the time, and it was the Communists and the Nationalists who split. Note that the article stops short of pointing out that a majority of people in Taiwan support the island's entry into the UN. Instead, it simply says the issue has "emotional resonance."


The latest Nelson Report, the Washington Insider Report, contains some useful information on the US side of things.

TAIWAN...the battle on Taiwan to gain UN membership had a brief flurry today...at the UN...as an attempt was made to get the topic onto the agenda for debate at this years General Assembly.

For the 15th consecutive year, China used its influence to block Taiwan's request at the Agenda Committee level. The wrinkle this year, as we have been reporting, is President Chen's campaign to join the UN under the official name of "Taiwan".

There may be another push, as early as this Friday, to get the issue before the UNGA for a vote...something the Administration very much wants to avoid, for many reasons.

As background, remember the role of accepted catechism in the Cross-Strait dialogue/standoff...Taiwan used to be "The Republic of China" and that is the country which was officially "derecognized" by the US in 1980, and replaced by The People's Republic of China.

(Remember also the howls of laughter...except in Beijing...when the White House public address announced proudly welcomed Chinese President Hu Jintao as the leader of "The Republic of China"?)

No laughing matter is that the UN membership fight has become the latest Chen/DPP effort to "push the envelope" in ways which President Bush himself has warned "threaten the peaceful status quo".

Maintaining that peaceful status-quo has been the sine qua non of US policy since 1972, and was codified into US law by the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, mandating continued arms sales for that purpose.

The Bush Administration has been increasingly "public" in its opposition to Chen's various moves on official international space, especially but not just limited to trying to stop next March's planned public referendum on joining the UN as "Taiwan".

But today the US was able to stay in the background, while China did the heavy lifting. What continues to concern the Administration, as noted above, is that President Chen seems determined to have a General Assembly debate sponsored by UN members who continue to officially recognize Taiwan as a sovereign, independent country.

In such an event, the Administration...and remember, Taiwan policy starts with President Bush...the US might feel it had no option but to change its ambiguous public stance on Taiwan independence from "we do not support, but we also do not oppose" to a flat..."we oppose".

Among many concerns, US also worries that if Chen pushes the UN issue he runs the risk of seeing many, if not the remainder of Taiwan's official international recognitions go down the drain...

For now, sources say the Bush folks are asking Beijing "don't over-react" to Chen and his actions, especially the current push at the UN itself.

Whether restraint from China is either likely, or politically possible, given the leadership situation in Beijing in the run-up to the Party Congress, et al, is increasingly a concern, informed sources admit.

Depending on whom you talk to, high-level Chinese sources have, on the one hand, told the Bush folks they are happy, so far, with how the US is working to keep the Taiwan situation under control.

On the other hand, Loyal Readers who also enjoy high-level Chinese sources report exactly the opposite - that in fact, the Leadership is increasingly worried, and dissatisfied, and has been warning the Bush folks that if they don't do better, Beijing is going to have to step in with...

And, as always, that's the concern. With what? Ten years ago it was missiles into the waters just off the island...

At a minimum, it could lead to a serious disruption in US-China relations, which is precisely the main reason President Bush has been running Taiwan policy himself,since 2002.

I've highlighted the last three paragraphs because they are critical. And read that last sentence: the Decider has dismissed his staff and has personally taken over the defense of Stalingrad. Since 2002......

Frank Ching, the Hong Kong-based commentator whose name most of you will recognize, had a commentary in the South China Morning Post, which at the moment is behind their annoying pay-to-view wall (so no link), but should be out elsewhere soon....

Taipei's Risky Game
Frank Ching

The United States has taken the unusual action of publicly acknowledging its differences with Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian. In effect, it's admitting that it has failed to influence Mr Chen through quiet diplomacy, and now hopes that forces within Taiwan will be able to change the president's mind about holding a referendum on applying to join the UN under the name "Taiwan".

The message came in blunt language last week from Thomas Christensen, US deputy assistant secretary of state. He said the actions of Taiwan's leaders "will be a major factor in determining whether the interests of their people are protected; whether Taiwan will continue to flourish in an environment of peace and security; or whether all that Taiwan has achieved might be put at risk by cross-strait tensions or, worse still, conflict".

He was addressing the US-Taiwan Business Council, and his remarks had great weight because he made it clear that they "represent the agreed views of the United States government".

President Chen plans to hold the referendum on March 22, to coincide with the island's presidential election.

"The United States is not opposed to referenda," Mr Christensen said in explaining the American position. "What worries us, very specifically, is the issue of name change. This draft referendum raises the question of what Taiwan should be called in the international community. Moreover, it does so in what could be interpreted by many to be a legally binding popular vote."

However, if Washington was hoping that such public pressure would have an effect on the Chen administration, it was due for a disappointment. Two days later, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal Asia, Mr Chen showed determination to press on despite American objections. He voiced confidence that there would be no violent reaction from Beijing.

He talked about the past four years, when he persisted in provocative actions despite American opposition. He recalled that he had successfully pushed for a referendum law in 2003 and held Taiwan's first referendum in 2004. Then, last year, he scrapped the National Unification Council and the Guidelines for National Unification.

"Time has proven that the US' concerns about different viewpoints regarding opposition to, and criticism of, our actions were all unwarranted," Mr Chen said. "Nothing happened."

Similarly, this time "the US government has also expressed opposition and grave concern". But, he went on: "I'd like to assure the US government that nothing is going to happen after March 22 next year."

For four years, Mr Chen has resisted attempts by Washington to temper his often irresponsible actions. However, Washington has little to show for its efforts. Now it has little choice but to wait for a new leadership to emerge in the presidential election next March.

Mr Chen is focused only on the domestic political gains from holding a referendum and is willing to risk the security of the island's 23 million people. He seems to think that, because Beijing has exercised restraint in the past, he can continue to be increasingly provocative.

That is brinkmanship pure and simple. To keep pushing to the verge of disaster is not the action of a responsible leader.

The US is taking the much more responsible position. It does not want to risk the security of Taiwan or to be drawn needlessly into a war with the mainland. It cannot afford to adopt Mr Chen's reckless attitude and let him continue to take provocative action until "something happens".

Hopefully, this public American stance will be a factor in the domestic politics of Taiwan. It is likely to influence the course of the ongoing presidential campaign. By appealing to the Taiwanese people, Washington is in effect asking the electorate to choose as their next leader a moderate who will work to make Taiwan strong but, at the same time, be willing to exercise restraint.

It will be interesting to see if the two presidential candidates, Ma Ying-jeou of the Kuomintang and Frank Hsieh Chang-ting of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party, take Washington's exhortations to heart. Taiwanese voters will make their decision in March. It will be a fateful one.

Christensen, as I've pointed out, thinks (wrongly) that voters in Taiwan actually listen to the US. Ching here acts as a mediator introducing the US position to readers, and positions himself firmly as a junior member of the Establishment, adopting the US view on terms like "moderate." Chen, he explains, is irresponsible:
For four years, Mr Chen has resisted attempts by Washington to temper his often irresponsible actions

That is brinkmanship pure and simple. To keep pushing to the verge of disaster is
not the action of a responsible leader.
These "irresponsible actions" include renaming the gas stations, and abolishing a symbolic body with a budget of US$30. (The image of the Bush Administration, with its insane invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the upcoming gotterdammerung in Iran, "tempering" someone else also has a delicious ironic humor to it). Meanwhile Chen is also reckless:
It cannot afford to adopt Mr Chen's reckless attitude and let him continue to take provocative action until "something happens".
By contrasted, Beijing is restrained:
He seems to think that, because Beijing has exercised restraint in the past, he can continue to be increasingly provocative.
The thing about such language is that it is so easy to parody, but in abusing it one misses Ching's horrid ethical position, which is that it would have been OK for Beijing to invade Taiwan, plunge the region into war, disrupt the world economy, and murder hundreds of thousands of people because Chen did something "irresponsible" like changing the name of the gas company, but Beijing was, you know, statesmen-like and all, "restraining itself." One is forced to ponder why, if Beijing's positions are so wonderful, it needs to be restrained in the first place. It is a cliche to reach for Orwell, but when I read pieces like this, I can't help but recall his brilliant essay, Politics and the English Language:
Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

"While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement."

The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.
Observe also that Ching ends with the dramatic:
Taiwanese voters will make their decision in March. It will be a fateful one.
Yes, it will be a fateful one (it's a Presidential election. Doh). But in the sense that Ching means, there won't be any great changes in Taiwan's behavior or policies, because they are driven by structural considerations of Taiwan's domestic political situation. Note that Ching, like Beijing, ascribes this mess to the machinations of the Diabolical Chen Shui-bian (who, if he did not exist, would have to be invented, a sort of Lei Feng in reverse) rather than attempting to understand Chen within the framework of Taiwanese identity and Taiwanese nationalism that he is appealing to.

I'm closing with these comments on a previous post by Thomas, who notes:

One more thing: Ban has also legitimized the use of the name "Taiwan" in applying for UN membership. While he declared the application for membership to be illegal, basing his decision on Resolution 2758, which indicates no such thing, he still has "allowed" discussion of the application under the name of Taiwan, thanks to the efforts of the island's allies (not that he himself has any choice in the matter, although he has used his position make decrees that were not in his power in the past). This is nothing less than a victory for the greens.

He observed earlier on the same post:

The greens can continue with their referendum push and there is nothing the blues can do to criticize them. This is because Ban has based his argument on the resolution that states that sovereignty of China resides with the government of the PRC. This means that Ma's decision to push an application under the name of the Republic of China is the most problematic one of all. Even though the resolution does not state that the ROC cannot apply for a NEW seat, it is the basis for Ban's argument that the island's application is illegal.

Of course, Ma will have no choice but to push ahead with his own referendum. He cannot back down without losing face. And he cannot criticize the greens without opening himself to criticism over the name he has chosen to use to represent the country.

The end result will be a net positive for Taiwan. The greens can play up their victimization and benefit from the public disappointment with Ban's comments. The blues can only play along. In the end, there will still be resolutions calling for UN entry, and at least one of them might actually pass (fingers crossed).

I hope that someone in the Hsieh administration has the sense to play this as it should be played.

When the "moderate" Hsieh comes to power, his policies are going to look a lot like the "radical" Chen's....


29 comments:

  1. Thanks for your comment at our website. We can definitely appreciate others beliefs but I'm sure you can understand our situation. We feel as if we've found the most wonderful and incredible thing in Christianity, and to keep that hidden from others would be cruel and go against human instinct of giving good things to our fellow men.

    We do promise not to be stupid and pushy about Christianity though.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So how does the UN issue get resolved when the major perpetrators of Taiwan's illegitamacy sit on its main core committee?

    Not. I think. Only a vote by the main body would gain Taiwan anything.

    So many of the UN's members hardly come close to Taiwan in terms of qualifications for statehood.

    So we really have the least amount of credence in the UN itself.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nelson Report:
    "...in fact, the Leadership (in China) is increasingly worried, and dissatisfied, and has been warning the Bush folks that if they don't do better, Beijing is going to have to step in with..."

    Interesting to see that USA has becomes China's watching dog.

    Way to go, Mr. Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nelson Report:
    "And, as always, that's the concern. With what? Ten years ago it was missiles into the waters just off the island..."
    -------------------------------------

    I don't think this is gonna happen. Before the Olympic next summer, China will do nothing but shouting.

    IMO, that's one of the reasons that China has to play USA as their watching dog for their dirty job.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mr. Turton,

    In regard to your recent comment on taiwaneers.com.

    I find your veiled suggestion that all Christians are intolerant to be an inspiring example of open mindedness and tolerance.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That wasn't a veiled suggestion, but an open statement. Christianity by it very nature is intolerant, even when its believers are decent people. What is its goal? "That every tongue shall praise, and every knee shall bend..." People who adhere to beliefs that demand the destruction of all other forms of human thought can hardly be described as tolerant.

    I am happy to tolerate anyone who tolerates me. But your religion has announced that my beliefs must be blotted out. What should my posture be?

    As I asked, believe if you like, but please don't spread your religion here. It's a tolerant island where there is no religious friction. I don't want to see that change.

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mr. Turton,

    It appears that your intolerance like most comes from an ignorance regarding the nature of the beliefs of others.

    The goal of christianity can be summed up in the "greatest commandments", "love the Lord your God with all your heart" and "love your neighbor as yourself".

    The quote that you refer to speaks of what Christians believe will happen when Jesus returns to earth.
    If Christians are correct and Jesus does return in a cloud of glory with earthquakes, trumpets and the whole bit, I do not find it far fetched to believe that the outcome will be every knee bowing and every tongue confessing.

    I closing I must state that many Christians through out history and today have misrepresented the principals of Christianity in much the same way that Muslim extremists currently misrepresent the principals of Islam.

    Hopefully you've learned a little about Christianity through this that may help you in the future to refrain from making blanket accusations of people you have never met.

    You are free to believe as you will as all people should be, my only request is that you refrain from making discourteous accusations of people you have never met and who are guests in YOUR country.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Daniel:

    It appears that your intolerance like most comes from an ignorance regarding the nature of the beliefs of others.

    Daniel. First, see the sidebar for my commentary on the Gospel of Mark. I have moderated two large discussion groups involving early Christian history. I have around 200 papers in my computer at the moment on Greek historical fiction that I am using to analyze Mark, and I have several shelves of books and hundreds of papers in my collection on early Christian history.

    It is far more likely, Daniel, that I know much, much more about your religion than you do.

    The goal of christianity can be summed up in the "greatest commandments", "love the Lord your God with all your heart" and "love your neighbor as yourself".

    No, that is the cover of Christianity. In Christianity "love" means "power", just as in Communism "worker" means "slave" and in Fascism "citizen" means "subject." It's all the same language Daniel, the language of power, authority, and control. I reject your religion for the same reason I reject Communism, Nazism, Islam, and all other forms of belief that demand the submission of the adherent.

    The quote that you refer to speaks of what Christians believe will happen when Jesus returns to earth. If Christians are correct and Jesus does return in a cloud of glory with earthquakes, trumpets and the whole bit, I do not find it far fetched to believe that the outcome will be every knee bowing and every tongue confessing.

    Daniel, please go read the Bible sometime. Philippians 2 is quite clear on what that means -- God exalted Jesus and gave him the name so that all would fall down and worship him. That's exactly what the text says, adopting the language of Isa 45 where God is quite clear that everyone had better obey or else.

    BTW Daniel, real love doesn't demand or need worship. Only Power and Authority demand that. Anything that demands that you worship it isn't loving you. It's controlling you.

    I closing I must state that many Christians through out history and today have misrepresented the principals of Christianity in much the same way that Muslim extremists currently misrepresent the principals of Islam.

    I don't believe either of your statements are true. I think the Christians who stamped out the native peoples and their thought systems of Asia, Africa, and the Americas knew the principles of Christianity perfectly well. Only in the last three hundred years has anyone adopted any view other than that the heathens should be converted or killed, and that only because of the Enlightenment.

    Hopefully you've learned a little about Christianity through this that may help you in the future to refrain from making blanket accusations of people you have never met.

    Hopefully you'll take up the study of Christianity and its political organization someday, and realize that you are wasting your brains and energy on a system of authoritarian control whose ultimate purpose is to stamp out every other form of belief on earth.

    And you still haven't answered my question. What should tolerant people like myself do when confronted by a structure such as yours that demands that all must convert? Every atheist faces this problem. Got any insight?

    You are free to believe as you will as all people should be, my only request is that you refrain from making discourteous accusations of people you have never met and who are guests in YOUR country.

    I'm always courteous, except for those who demand that I cease to exist as a thinking person, and attempt to alter all human societies they encounter, destroy any belief they do not like, and limit the thought and freedom of those they cannot take control of.

    Non serviam.

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mr. Turton,

    Thank-you for your lengthy reply. You appear to be passionate about tearing Christianity down and "exposing" it. I can understand why a person with such desires would put aside polite discussion as you have. I find it harder to fault you for your comments now that I understand your perspective better.

    You seem to be very well educated. It is suprising that you would feel comfortable asserting that you know more about my religion then I do when you know so little about me.

    I feel that for the sake of honesty, in the future you should not present yourself as a model of tolerance when you have stated clearly that you have no tolerance for nor wish to listen to the ideas of anyone who considers themselves a Christian, a Communist or a Muslim.

    This position leaves you with tolerance and open-mindedness for less than 46% of the people on the planet. Since you are intolerant of over half the people on the planet it may no even be fair the use the word "tolerant" to describe yourself in a general sense.

    At this point I feel that I have probably monopolized your comments with off topic discussion enough. For this I apologize.

    Thank-you for the stimulating discussion. If you wish to add further I will certainly read it out of respect for your perspective and the things that I could learn from it, however, I don't wish to monpolize your time any longer with my dogmatic and closed-minded point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thank-you for your lengthy reply. You appear to be passionate about tearing Christianity down and "exposing" it. I can understand why a person with such desires would put aside polite discussion as you have. I find it harder to fault you for your comments now that I understand your perspective better.

    Is this discussion impolite? In what sense, and where? It isn't me who runs around demanding that all other forms of religious belief must be destroyed, Daniel, that's your side. Yet when we complain about your hateful intolerance of other modes of thought, we are being "impolite" and "intolerant".

    You seem to be very well educated. It is suprising that you would feel comfortable asserting that you know more about my religion then I do when you know so little about me.

    I know little about you, but lots about Christians. And in my experience, there's no one who knows less about Christianity than Christians.

    You can refute me at any moment by demonstrating knowledge. But somehow I feel quite safe in that regard....we've already noted how you totally misread Philippians 2. Your lack of response indicates what I already knew -- that you know nothing about your own religion, save for interpretations you have received from others.

    I feel that for the sake of honesty, in the future you should not present yourself as a model of tolerance when you have stated clearly that you have no tolerance for nor wish to listen to the ideas of anyone who considers themselves a Christian, a Communist or a Muslim.

    I am always happy to listen -- in fact I've just completed a book with a Church of Christ pastor, which we are now shopping to publishing companies. My son is a Christian and my wife a Tibetan Buddhist whose altar is right in our living room. So really, I don't see much reason to doubt my own easygoing tolerance toward the beliefs of others, it is manifested in everything I do. An intellectual commitment to opposition is not the same as a personal commitment to incivility. Unlike with your side, where charity and tolerance are simply conversion strategies, whatever the individual Christian's own point of view.

    At this point I feel that I have probably monopolized your comments with off topic discussion enough. For this I apologize.

    There's no need to apologize. And I noted that you still have studiously avoided answering my question: What are tolerant and easygoing people like myself to do in the face of beliefs such as Christianity or Communism that demand the submission and conversion of all who are not of them?

    Thank-you for the stimulating discussion. If you wish to add further I will certainly read it out of respect for your perspective and the things that I could learn from it, however, I don't wish to monpolize your time any longer with my dogmatic and closed-minded point of view.

    I don't mind your point of view Daniel, I just object to the hypocrisy of your attempt at sarcasm here, when the religion that you subscribe to demands that I have no right to exist except as a member of its cult.

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dear Michael,

    I went through some similar path in understanding Christianity through long time involvement, and ended up with the same view point of "intolerance" as you have. I am especially pissed when they would talk to me saying that my belief is garbage and Christianity is the only way. I am sure that I will never become a Christian in my life, and I believe you won't either.

    On the other hand, I've seen how much better of life Christianity has brought to people. Those who believes in Christianity are usually calmer, more peaceful, and more forgiving. It's a positive influence to the society. Especially, the spirits of Christianity: peace, justice, ... etc, are very important to a not-fully-developed society like Taiwan.

    Don't forget that Christianity played a very critical role in pan-green's struggle toward democracy and independence. Their principle of justice and fairness coincide with a better society that we have been pursuing.

    I understand completely why you say this:

    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    What should tolerant people like myself do when confronted by a structure such as yours that demands that all must convert?
    <<<<<<<<<<<<

    But I was also very shocked --- in disbelief --- to read the following from you:

    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    I’m glad you found fellowship, but please do not spread your religion here. Because 97% of Taiwanese aren’t intolerant Christians, Taiwan is a tolerant and friendly place to religious people of all kinds, and atheists like myself. None of us want to see that change.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<

    How did you conclude "None of us want to see that change"? I am rejecting Christianity for myself as you are for yourself, but I do want to see Christianity spread wider in Taiwan! I believe that Christianity does good to some people, and, not like us, for most people Christianity is probably the best thing they could ever encounter in their lives, especially in a society that has been deeply polluted by the unjust, corrupt Chinese culture.

    So why don't you give them a little slack, and give people their chances to decide by their own? After all, Christians do have the freedom of speech, and they are not pointing guns to force people into believing !

    Christianity's intolerance is what you are criticizing at, but I think it's no good to reject them using the same way you are criticizing at.

    I hope I didn't misunderstand anything here.

    ReplyDelete

  12. Don't forget that Christianity played a very critical role in pan-green's struggle toward democracy and independence. Their principle of justice and fairness coincide with a better society that we have been pursuing.


    Sure. The Presbetyerian Church was great....but the Catholics supported the regime, and so did the Methodists. Many individual Christians fought the KMT. Many supported it. As far as I can see, Christianity was a wash in the democracy movement.

    I believe that Christianity does good to some people, and, not like us, for most people Christianity is probably the best thing they could ever encounter in their lives, especially in a society that has been deeply polluted by the unjust, corrupt Chinese culture.

    That's an interesting point of view, Runsun. You see only the "nice" side now because Christianity is too small and weak here for its authoritarian structural features to come into play in this part of the world. But you can't solve the problem of corruption and justice by turning to another form of authoritarianism and injustice. It is only by opting for modes of interaction that emphasize human solidarity and cooperation in the here and now that we can go forward. You can't legitimate social values in transcendent authority. Because behind every transcendent absolute -- be it god, the state, the objective laws of history, the Koran -- is a sword itching to come out.

    So why don't you give them a little slack, and give people their chances to decide by their own? After all, Christians do have the freedom of speech, and they are not pointing guns to force people into believing !

    Why don't I give people their chance to "decide on their own?" Because Christianity is not an individual choice, but a choice to involve oneself in a particular structure with particular goals. If Christianity were merely a matter of personal taste like Isaac Asimov novels or Sri Lankan curries, it would be no problem. But its the structural features of authority beliefs like Christianity, Communism, and Fascism, that make them so objectionable. By declaring oneself Christian one declares support for those goals, regardless of one's particular behavior.

    That in turn leads to social consequences that those of us who are not Christians have to put up with: in the US it is impossible now for an open atheist to become president (in fact 8 state constitutions forbid atheists from holding public office, though that cannot be enforced thanks to the federal constitution). The happy election of 1860, that saw two "infidels" running against each other for the presidency, will never be repeated. I need not outline the consequences of Christianity for gays and people of color, nor for women. They are too dreary to repeat here. So, yeah, here we confront the problem -- the choices might be personal, but the consequences are social. Hence, my opposition.

    But the other reason I don't agree with this comment is that it is manifestly untrue: nearly all Christian belief is coerced, since Christians convert their children. And children, Runsun, by definition cannot give consent (which is why I don't push my atheism on my kids; I am waiting until they are old enough to develop their own minds). In fact in Taiwan a friend of mine who tried to adopt was told by orphanages run by Christians that they only adopt to Christians. In other words, those orphanages specifically envision children as mere captives to be converted. How sick is that?

    Perhaps among adults there is the idea of "personal choice" but things are more complex than that, always.

    Sorry to be so wordy!

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mr. Turton,

    My apologies. My avoidance of your question was unintentional. I will answer it now.

    What are tolerant and easygoing people like myself to do in the face of beliefs such as Christianity or Communism that demand the submission and conversion of all who are not of them?

    First of all let me say that if I put myself in your shoes with the perspectives and beliefs that you have outlined I would certainly not be a Christian. If I believed as you do that Christianity is a structure of control then I would certainly oppose it. However, my 20 years of study of and personal experience with Christianity as a subculture and personal relationships with other Christians have simply led me to an entirely different conclusion. I believe that Christianity that is not of the individuals free will is not Christianity at all.

    The previous paragraph rambles somewhat so let me sum up. I understand the fact that if your beliefs are correct you have no other course. We are two people that have drawn different conclusions regarding the nature of Christianity. I believe a state or society that would take punitive action against you for your atheism would be in the wrong to do so.

    All through out this discussion my chief interest has not been to change your mind on any point save one. That someone so educated, "easygoing" and "tolerant", acts outside of the character that they profess when they make intolerant comments on a strangers blog. You say that your son is a Christian. One diagnostic question to ask yourself may be: Have I forbidden my son from discussing his faith with others that do not believe as he does? If you have then you are clearly limiting you sons ability to engage in discussion as a thinking person. If you have not then you allow your son to engage in activity that you feel compelled to ask strangers to cease.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Daniel:

    My son can do as he pleases and discuss whatever he wants with whomever he wants. I am not a Christian,and so do not feel the need to exert control over my son's religious thoughts.

    Also, I'm a former Peace Corps volunteer in sub-saharan Africa with a foreign wife who lives in a foreign country and has two mixed kids, and lives in a household with three different religious beliefs. The idea that I am intolerant is, well, laughable.

    Your response really doesn't address the issue, Daniel. The stated goal of Christianity and other authority systems is the elimination of all competing forms of thought. That's not a matter of taste or of differing opinions, but a matter of established policy and historical fact. Where are the ancient religions of Greece and Rome? Scandinavia? Latin America? The Philippines? Africa?

    Opposition, Daniel, is not the same as "intolerance."

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  15. My experience with Christian friends and acquaintances has been that members or believers in different sects of Christianity can have greatly varying opinions on "control" and "domination" over foreign religions.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Channing,

    my Christian friends are the same way. But the opinions of individuals ARE.NOT.RELEVANT. Because there are structural features of Christianity that such remarks -- and modes of thinking -- do not address. To make a simple analogy, you only have to look at the remarkably different opinions on US foreign policy or British imperialist policy among Americans of the 20th century or British of the 19th. Yet, those policies played havoc with the world regardless of who was criticizing or what individual Britons and Americans thought. Until one starts thinking about the structures that humans create for themselves, one is going to be stuck at the "good people don't...." level of analysis. That too, of course, is one of the structural features of Authority Beliefs like Christianity that invite you to discount the existence of a structure at all.

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mr. Turton,

    Allow me to be more specific in my statement. I believe your comment was an intolerant act conducted by an otherwise tolerant person. A trivial act by any account but intolerant non the less. It appears from the comments on both blogs that I am not the only one that has seen the irony of it.

    I know I've used sarcasm as a device during this discussion but believe me when I say that I sincerely thank you for a stimulating debate. It has caused me to explore more deeply the ideas discussed and that can never come to ill.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thanks, Daniel. I appreciate your position.

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  19. BTW, I've lost the blog where all this started, so if you feel motivated, put in a link to this discussion over there.

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  20. Never mind, got it again. It's in the comments here. I'll do it myself.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dear Michael,

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Sorry to be so wordy!
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Don't worry about being wordy. I was shocked to the bone by your extreme attitude toward Christianity. I need some substantial materials to "unshock" me.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You see only the "nice" side now because ...
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    This is not true, Michael. I've learned enough to know that there was dark chapter of Christian history, and I've lived in and observed the American society long enough to know how deeply Christianity intertwines with the entire society. But I also observed, in numerous occasions, with my own eyes how much better a person's life has become. I also observed the "blood for blood" revenging cycles are stopped by Christianity's forgiving power. When individuals have better lives we get a better society. To me this is a positive side the Christianity can contribute to the society. This is happening right in front of our eyes but doesn't seem to matter in your view.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Why don't I give people their chance to "decide on their own?" Because Christianity is not an individual choice, but a choice to involve oneself in a particular structure with particular goals.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    You are going too far here, man. Every group of people, social or political or something, involve oneself in a particular structure with particular goals. You can't use this as an excuse to single out Christianity for rejection.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    nearly all Christian belief is coerced, since Christians convert their children. And children, Runsun, by definition cannot give consent
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    You went too far again here. Most parents want to share what they think the best with their children, and many force their children into it. Coerced or not, this is certainly not just limited to Christians. You can't single out Christianity for rejection on this one either.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    By declaring oneself Christian one declares support for those goals, regardless of one's particular behavior.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    To my knowledge, most people become a Christian not because they support the authoritarian side of it, but because they need rescue from their troubles of life and Christianity can provide that. I really doubt how many percentage of Christians believing in God because they support the authoritarianism.
    --------------

    Besides all that, your explanation of excluding Christianity from Taiwan is based on questionable assumptions:

    (1) Christianity will wide spread in Taiwan like it does in USA or other western countries
    (2) when it does Taiwan society will go the way western countries are going now.

    Not all people will respond to stimulations in the same way. Certainly different countries will respond to Christianity differently. It can't be more clear by your own words:

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    97% of Taiwanese aren’t intolerant Christians, Taiwan is a tolerant and friendly place to religious people of all kinds
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Westerners have been trying to Christianize Asian for centuries, and there must be fundamental reasons for Taiwanese to stay "less than 3% Christians" after centuries of Christianizing attempt.

    To my knowledge Taiwanese are not as extreme as many other countries (like Korean). Any extreme idea will not be approved by the majority of Taiwanese, even the extreme idea of independence. You should have already witnessed that by observing how both pan-green and pan-blue extremists keep changing their directions toward the middle.

    It's therefore premature to think that Christianity will spread as widely as it does in Western countries, and even more far-fetched to assume that Taiwanese society will respond to Christianity the same way Westerners does. Your presumption along this line is like sentencing a person a jail time before he/she is found guilty.
    --------------

    But all the above haven't covered the real problem of your statement yet. I already hinted in my previous post:

    "After all, Christians do have the freedom of speech, and they are not pointing guns to force people into believing !"

    However, by responding to my post with wordy explanation of your approach armed with how well you understand Christianity, you totally missed the point.

    It doesn't matter how knowledgeable you are, Michael. What went wrong is the way you applied it:

    - You don't allow Christians to have the freedom of speech in Taiwan (there goes the speech freedom);
    - You are trying to exclude Taiwanese from accessing Christianity (there goes the religion freedom);
    - You don't trust Taiwanese to be capable of making decision for themselves so you have to decide what they can access for them (Didn't you just criticize that foreign media treat Taiwan as toddlers at about the same time you made this comment?)

    It seems to me that on the way to exclude the Christianity from Taiwan, you have crossed the lines of "speech freedom," of "religion freedom," of "respecting Taiwanese to have the right to make their own decisions." As such, the substantial knowledge you learned about Christianity has become a tool for you to justify the crossing-line attitudes and turned yourself into something you are criticizing.

    To be honest, Michael, in terms of the attitude toward different religions, you seem to be more extreme than those Christians I met. I've been reading your blog long enough to admire your determination on beholding free speech, free thinking, mutual respect ... But by trying over-zealously to exclude the Christianity from Taiwanese reach, you stand against those values you have been fighting for. I feel sad like all what I admired about you go down to the toilet in one flush. You can imagine why I was so "shocked to the bone".

    ReplyDelete
  22. It doesn't matter how knowledgeable you are, Michael. What went wrong is the way you applied it:

    - You don't allow Christians to have the freedom of speech in Taiwan (there goes the speech freedom);
    - You are trying to exclude Taiwanese from accessing Christianity (there goes the religion freedom);
    - You don't trust Taiwanese to be capable of making decision for themselves so you have to decide what they can access for them (Didn't you just criticize that foreign media treat Taiwan as toddlers at about the same time you made this comment?)


    Runsun, now you're being completely ridiculous.

    First, opposing something is not the same as demanding restrictions on it. Read what I wrote carefully. Nothing in it implies that I think Christianity (or for that matter, Communism or even the KMT) should be illegal. Or restricted. Or whatever dark fantasy you've read into my thoughts.

    To be honest, Michael, in terms of the attitude toward different religions, you seem to be more extreme than those Christians I met. I've been reading your blog long enough to admire your determination on beholding free speech, free thinking, mutual respect ... But by trying over-zealously to exclude the Christianity from Taiwanese reach, you stand against those values you have been fighting for. I feel sad like all what I admired about you go down to the toilet in one flush. You can imagine why I was so "shocked to the bone".

    Yes, I can see, since your response consisted of attributing values to me that I don't hold. *sigh* Really, you're being way overdramatic.

    BTW, free speech runs in both directions, as does religious freedom, a point that you entirely miss. The missionaries have every right to spread their crap here -- and I have every right to announce that it is crap, and to tell them not to spread it. They have every right to ignore me. And I have every right to say to Taiwanese Christianity is a bad idea. And they have every right to pay no attention. That's what living in a free society means.

    I really doubt how many percentage of Christians believing in God because they support the authoritarianism.

    See? How you got that out of what I wrote is beyond me. Now you are scaring me. Never did I claim that people believe in god because they support authoritarianism. The entire thrust of what I wrote is entirely opposite of that -- I wrote, in capitals, that individual beliefs ARE NOT RELEVANT because of the problem of Christianity-as-structure. Which is to say -- it doesn't matter what the individual believes -- the structure is designed so that individual commitments are NOT RELEVANT. Hence, while there are probably people who signed up for Christianity because they are into submission or domination of one kind or another -- the former is very common in the fundie and evangelical sects -- the vast majority of people don't think of themselves as doing that. Conversion is a social act that is unrelated to the content of the belief -- people will happily convert to any other belief no matter how crazy under the right social circumstances -- see the history of Scientology or Mormonism.

    You're going to have to start separating structure from individual if you ever want to understand what is going on with religious belief.

    As for doing charitable and "good" things, all the authority beliefs, Communism, Nazism, Fascism, Islam, whatever, they all engage in that. That too is part of their structure, which is why they acquire such nice, idealistic adherents.

    It seems across the board you've missed what I said. You said that it was true that you had seen the dark side of Christianity, but my point was not that you were ignorant, but that when Christianity is weak, it pretends to be nicer than it is. Later on, when it acquires local power, the clubs of coercion will come out.

    I was just reading an article in WaPo the other day about evangelical Christianity in Nigeria, where converts are told to destroy objects of religious art that had been in family for centuries. When I traveled in Sri Lanka Christians had gotten so out of hand (the early Portugese conquistadors there toppled temples into the sea) that Buddhists -- Buddhists! -- were considering laws limiting their behavior. Of course, the Buddhists were told they were intolerant....even though it was the avowed goal of Christianity in Sri Lanka to completely eliminate Buddhism from the minds of all Sri Lankans. What could be more intolerant than that?

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  23. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    First, opposing something is not the same as demanding restrictions on it. Read what I wrote carefully. Nothing in it implies that I think Christianity (or for that matter, Communism or even the KMT) should be illegal. Or restricted. Or whatever dark fantasy you've read into my thoughts.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    I did read what you wrote back and forth but sorry to say that -- to me -- your original wording did imply that.

    But I am glad that you clarify it and put it into words. This is for sure gonna make me sleep better.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    BTW, free speech runs in both directions, as does religious freedom, a point that you entirely miss. The missionaries have every right to spread their crap here -- and I have every right to announce that it is crap, and to tell them not to spread it. They have every right to ignore me. And I have every right to say to Taiwanese Christianity is a bad idea. And they have every right to pay no attention. That's what living in a free society means.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    I am glad to see this too. I am sure you will also agree that "Christians have every right to say that they are the only way and you have every right to ignore them".

    I hope that readers will never see words like this again:

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I’m glad you found fellowship, but please do not spread your religion here. Because 97% of Taiwanese aren’t intolerant Christians, Taiwan is a tolerant and friendly place to religious people of all kinds, and atheists like myself. None of us want to see that change.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    'cos, as I mentioned earlier, I for one would like to see more Christians in Taiwan. Besides, unless you have personally asked every single Taiwanese and got the confirmation from them, any single disagreement will prove you wrong.

    Anyway, basically I agree with most of your description about Christianity domination in history or in other countries. But I just don't think Taiwanese will repeat that. I've explained why in my previous comment.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 'cos, as I mentioned earlier, I for one would like to see more Christians in Taiwan. Besides, unless you have personally asked every single Taiwanese and got the confirmation from them, any single disagreement will prove you wrong.

    Wrong on both counts -- none of us refers to atheists like myself (as noted in the previous sentence), not Taiwanese, and general statements of the nature "americans like pizza" or "None of us want to see ____" cannot be disproved by a single negative case.

    But you're right, I should have been more careful with the wording.

    am glad to see this too. I am sure you will also agree that "Christians have every right to say that they are the only way and you have every right to ignore them".

    Yes, why wouldn't I? To my eternal regret, I ignored them for years. Never again. Not after what they've done in the US.

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dear Michael,

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    To my eternal regret, I ignored them for years. Never again. Not after what they've done in the US.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    As you mentioned, you have every right to continue advocating your extreme anti-Christianity view. But I really doubt Taiwanese is gonna buy any of it. You must have known that, in Taiwan, any extreme idea is gonna be tossed away by Taiwanese quickly. I believe that Taiwanese will reject your extreme view long before the Christianity is able to spread in Taiwan.

    Anyway, I'm glad to see that (1) you are not suggesting that Christianity should be illegal; (2) you agree that Christians have every right to spread their idea in Taiwan. Those are main points I wanted to clarify.

    Sorry to drag you deep into this. I shall retire now. Godspeed... :) :) :)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sure Runsun. A whole religion has announced that its goal is to instantiate itself into every mind on earth, but I'm the "extreme" one for opposing that. The point of view I advocate, that Christianity is a bad idea, is one that is mainstream in numerous books, Runsun, including several modern bestsellers. See recent works by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris.

    BTW, I nowhere advocated anything you are relieved to find out I didn't advocate. So the source of your relief is a continuing mystery to me. That whole episode exists entirely in your own mind.

    Finally, my remarks were not aimed at "Taiwanese" but at the missionaries. I am quite confident Christianity will never do very well here -- but it does not take very many Christians to create problems for others who love their freedom and the freedom of those around them.

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  27. Some readers might be interested in this:

    Rational Atheism

    by Michael Shermer

    ReplyDelete
  28. Wow. Excellent article, Runsun. Atheists and Theists alike would do well to consider these thoughts.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.