Religion and politics: the solution?

[Machjo]

A very interesting debate is raging in a Chinad Daily forum:

bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/

It's about an ever-increasing fear of Zionism in China, and it's become a very multi-disciplinary debate as well, involving religion, politics and linguistics all mashed into one, and intertwining with all kinds of other issues too. Some of the topics discussed include (may or may be my opinion too, but not necessarily; I'm just presenting some of the arguments that have come up):

1. Linguistic: China's current English language policy gives Christians (as well as Zionists disguised as such) an opportunity to use English as a tool to convert Chinese. Since English is compulsory right up to university, and for all specializations, failing an English test could keep an otherwise perfectly competent Engineering student from getting his degree. This could apply pressure on him to find English help wherever available, and since English courses can be expensive, legal Bible study groups in English provided by foreigners are a next best thing. Native English speaking Christians (or Zionists disguised as such) are thus given an unfair advantage over the Chinese in that while it may appear on the surface that the Chinese is free to choose whether or not to attend, school pressure on them to learn English may make the 'choice' one of opportunity-cost of significance. As a result, it is concluded that while there is nothing wrong with Christians holding such groups legally, and Chinese are certainly free to attend, the current PRC English language policy is causing some students to feel at a disadvantage in such situations, which is boud to cause resentment in some.

This is one position, others arguing that it's a non-issue. Those who think it is an issue, naturally support eliminating the compulsory nature of English studies in university.

2. Political: Some believe Christianity in the US and increasingly in other English-speaking countries has been or is being highjacked by the Zionist movement. Combine that with the fact that many foreigners in China are form such countries (most of the rest would have a hard time communicating in China), and it's clear why some would become suspicious of Christianity in China as well. They fear the risk of Chritianity in China also becoming highjacked by Zionism. This of course leads to s growing anti-Christian semtiment, which Christians on the forum resent.

Solutions:

Solutions have generally not been put forward until recently. Previous solutions generally boiled down to simplistic 'just keep 'em in check', with some of the more thoughtful ones suggesting major reform to the country's English language policy.

Recently, however, new ideas have been put forward, and some have spilt into the realm of international politics. Since it's viewed that the highjacking of Christianity by Zionists in one country risks spreading to others, a proposal was made to try to separate religion from politics at an internaitonal level so as to also moderate anti-Christian and anti-semetic influence, the idea being that the anti Christian and anti- Jewiseh sentiments stemmed primarily from the growth of Zionism worldwide. Among proposals made for how other countries could deal with this were the folowing:

1. Ban people from simultaneous membership in a political and religious organization. Iyou want to be a member of one, you must withdraw your membership from the other. So, for example a member of a local church would not be allowed to be a member of a political party or organization such as Greenpeace, although membership in non-political organizations would certainly be permissible. Beyond that, they'd ahve the same freedoms as now.

2. Make world religious literature a compulsory subject in schools, so as to mitigate against prejudice, extremism, and ignorance that Zionists could exploit to their own advantage.

Possibilities:

While I could agree with the two ideas presented above, I'm not sure how other Canadians would take them. After all, this is coming from a different cultural context from the Canadian one. So what are your thoughts on this and how to deal with the rising anti-Christian and anti-Jewish sentiment? Personally, I think suppressing Zionism would be an effective way to do this, especially considering that it's the very source of this rising animosity to begin with. In the end, the Zionists' worst victims can only be the Jews and Christians.

I would be intersted in reading your coments.

PS, the reason this is in the political and not religious forums is because this is looking it at it more from a political than religious point of view in my opinion, as opposed to spiritual and phylosophical questions.

 

[Devin Baldo]

It is clear that the linguistic policy in China serves an interesting purpose of orienting professionals towards the use of perhaps the most economically vaible language, mainly English. The failure of the state to provide english classes accesible to many demonstrates how private organizations such as zionist organization will fill the gap for a government failure to provide a service to its citizens. It makes no sense business or economically speaking to eliminate the english requirments as China realizes that more important then educating engineers is providing those engineers with the ability to internationalize their skill by utilizing a 'mainly dominant' english business world. Apart form the linguistic issues the political issues of rizing zonism should indeed be addressed. The idea of limiting political organization of religious groups no matter their affiliation is far from practical. Without a political system or stage where grieved parties can express their oppinion there would be far more violence. It is typically discourse within the political realm that allows for conflict resolution. Politics is about comprimize and power, and if one include religious groups in the process it facilitate and include then in power structure of the state therefore given them incentive to not go outside the bounds of discorse to resolve problems.

1. Therefore I would strongly disagree with the first course of action proposed as it is an authoritarian policy of exclusion and lacks logic on democratic grounds as well as practicle grounds. It would not work in practice as extreme positions would be excluded from the debate and as such zionist will not believe that the mechanism of political representation can address their issues and they will therefore be alienated and proceed to further isolate their values from the mainstream of society.
2. On the second proposed policy action I would not entirely disagree as it proposes contrary to the first a comming together of opinions and view in order to facilitate discourse and undertanding. On an ideal level we should all be open minded but this is certainly far from what happens in practice. In practice the curiculum of public or private education may not put a value on the recommendation of diversity education which is unfortunate.

In regards to the supposed highjacking of Christianity by Zionist influence this is hardly a proven phenomenon. In reality it although some individuals or organizations may express extreme versions of any political or religious doctrine( i.e. marxist revolution, Jihadism) it is hardly representive of the mainstream. It is rather over emphasized as a factor in certain circumstance, but then again may have merit. It may be that Zionists feel there religious beliefs are not respected or given a voice in the political realm, and as such have been alienated from the mainstream, and this cause only further extremist development of a doctrine. The solution is to incorporate these individuals into the political process therefore making them have a stake in the political debate and as such they may be more likely to comprimize certain extremist aspects of their doctrine in favor of their core beliefs, which for zionist do not differ tremedously from Christianity.

 

[Machjo]

Interesting viewpoint, Devin.

As for banning religionists from political organizations, while I do believe that it is wise for them not to mix in politics in order to avoid fears and suspicions on the part of the general population, I'm still not sure that banning is the solution. I still think world religions in the curriculum could certainly moderate extremist viewpoints.

As for English, I do take issue with that on a few points:

1. Many fluent English speakers in China are looking for work.

2. Many companies are actively looking for speakers of other languages.

3. One university professor mentionned to me that the level of Chinese proficiency among university students has been slipping over the years (he'd been in the profession for over 20 years). In addition, I myself have noticed that some Chinese university students, when conversing in Chinese, must resort to English for some technical vocabulary. One article a friend had translated for me from a professor in Shanghai had found that the number of English words in newspapers has been steadily increasing (I've noticed it myself) and that concern that the growth of technical vocabulary is growing too slowly. While such vocabulary is regularly created, it is often ignored, with many preferring to turn to Chinglish... in Chinese!

I've also witnessed ethnic conflict over this issue as well. To take one example while I was eating in a Sala restaurant. Some Chinese sitting at the table next to me commented that the Xinjiang stretched noodles here were different from the ones in Xinjiang, then tried to converse with me in English. So I asked:

你们去过新疆吗？

One male answered:

我们是新疆人．

I, excited, since I'd been in Xinjiang long ago and hadn't met such people for a long time:

啊，你们会Uighur吗？

什么？听不懂．什么意思？　he asked.

So I explained: Uighur是维吾尔语的单字．意思是维吾尔．　你们会吗？

不会he replied.

哈萨克语或吉尔吉斯语呢？I asked.

不会．我们是汉族．explained the girl to his right.

Then they quickly left.

The waiter, a Sala himself, said to me with a certain contempt in his face:

他们是fakr!

I was a little shocked, but I although I know not a word of Sala, I could guess that if their ethnic group is mostly Muslim, that they'd have a few Arabic words. In Arabic, Fakrun means 'unbeliever' (cf. South African English 'Fakir', which comes from the same root, the Arabic plural 'unbeleivers'.

At first I was shocked by his comment, but later it dawned on me from my previous experiences in Xinjiang that some Uighurs really do take offense at native born Xinjiang Han who can speak English but can't speak a word of Uighur. This may also lead to certain symbolic steriotypes of language, as is what I suspect happenned in that restaurant (i.e. language A becomes perceived as a 'Muslim' language, language B as a non-Mulism language). Once language is socially separated this way, it can only lead to ethnic segregation in mixed cities, as is the case in Urumqi, with its resultant political concequences. If I remember correctly, buses were blowing up there just a couple of years ago.

So certainly, if the government perceives of language strictly in a limited economic context, it may be in for a shock later. As any specialist in the field of sociolinguistics will tell you , language has not only economic aspects, but also political, social, religious, ethnic, geographical, psychological and other sides as well, depending on how the language may be perceived in a society, as a language of opportunity, oppression, justice, injustice, of a friendly ethnic group, of the enemy, etc. etc. etc.

So I do believe that giving more language options could also help to solve of the the other interlinguistic issues in the region. We cannot just look at everything in terms of dollars no sense.