OK everyone, I am back from my trip out of town and have recovered from the Irish misfortune of this afternoon. You are to write this weekend about your observations and comments on Article 36 of the Chinese Constitution. The constitution may be found at:
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html
I also asked you to have a look at Document 19, that is if you can get a page capture of it from Google Books. A portion of this was published in English in Donal E. MacInnis, Religion in China Today Policy and Practice (Maryknoll: Orbis , 1989) We read a page or two of discussion of this document in Anthony Yu's work on State and Religion in China. You can revisit his commentary and the quotes from it there.
Given the wording of the Constitution's Article 36, why is it that there has been so much difficulty with religion in both theory and practice? How does Document 19 contribute to our understanding of this complex relationship? Another question to consider would emerge from rereading the quotation I sent you last week on the Chinese state as a critical force in traditional religion. Here is the quote again for you to ponder as you reflect on the tension between state and religion:
He goes on to suggest that "belief" in the state was one of the principal forms of traditional Chinese religion, and that this belief entailed adopting its rituals.We may wonder, in this regard, whether anything basic has changed in contemporary China. Certainly, the requirement of belief in the state and participation in its prescribed rituals has not. Indeed, we might say that, insofar as belief in the state and participation in its ritual sis central to the definition of the "modern" state, China is truly, as we saw Faure to suggest, the first nation-state.
(John Lagerwey, "State and Local Society in Late Imperial China," T'oung Pao 93 (2007): 475.
OK let's see what's on your minds.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I found document 19 here. . . I think its what we're supposed to look at but I'm not 100% sure: http://www.religlaw.org/interdocs/docs/doc19relig1982.htm
ReplyDeleteThank you John. This is indeed the very document we want to have a look at. Reading this alongside Article 36 enables us to obtain a better understanding of the religious persecution and sectarianism dialectic of modern Chinese politics. Let's check this out.
ReplyDeleteThe words which stood out to me from Article 36 of the constitution were "The state protects normal religious activities", that religious activities were not to "disrupt public order", and that "religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination". Initially, the wording in these phrases creates several issues. First of all, the state has the assumed privilege of defining what is "normal" for religious practices. There is no explicitly stated base-line of normalcy, and it seems as if "normal" can be arbitrarily decided by the party. Second, "disrupt public order" would specifically exclude an religious protests. Finally, the rejection of "foreign domination" serves to divorce China's religious community from outside interference. Particularly, it seems to be aimed at the Catholic Church, which the Communist Party blames, at least partially, for the history of colonialism and general repression of China in Document 19.
ReplyDeleteDocument 19 is interesting in that not only does it elucidate a Communist belief about the position of religion in a post-Revolution world, but also in the restrictions and the implicit interpretations of Article 36. For instance, the definition of "normal religions", seems to be interpreted as the Communist Party will have oversight of religions. The various patriotic religious organizations seem to imply that these religious organizations are a lower part of government organization. All of this seems to be aimed at emphasizing that religion is secondary to the party and merely an illogical blip to be tolerated.
Katie Allare
Reading Article 36 side by side with Document 19 gives the words a whole new meaning. The bolded words espouse freedom and the rights of the citizenry, however progressively the language changes. The first sentence is in the positive, whereas every subsequent sentence discusses what is not allowed (with the exception of "The state protects normal religious activities"). This exception, however, with our new lens of Document 19, should actually be read in the negative as: the state will not protect any religious activity that it does not agree with (and as we see with society today, will take the next step and actively persecute against it). I am completely in agreement with Katie, the word "normal" jumps out at me immediately and is a huge warning flag. The problem with religion in both theory and practice in China, is that through the wording of the constitution, religion must come through the state. The state makes its own definitions and interprets these definitions as well as the constitution, thus the constitution protects and proclaims nothing more than what the party currently finds permissible. Thus the claim, "Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief", is completely false. This conclusion makes the state a "critical force in traditional Chinese religion". The final sentence of Article 36 leads us in this direction, as it claims "religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination". What does this leave us with; religion is to be dominated by the state, the Chinese Communist Party.
ReplyDeleteThree months after the adoption of the constitution, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party issued Document 19, an interpretive component to go alongside Article 36. In this we can clearly see goal of the CCP to dominate religion and gradually see it to its demise in China. Alone, the fact party members must be atheists predicts bad things to come for religion. As we have learned thus far, China is a very religious country, and there is a situation where a small minority (atheists) is attempting to control institutions, as well as ways of life, which they predict will ever so gradually fizzle out as people come to their senses. The language of Document 19 lends itself to this viewpoint as well with the continued application of "patriotic". Whatever is patriotic is inextricably tied to the state. Document 19 was not surprising in its content after the wording in Article 36, and its formal function seems to be outlining which religions are permissible. I did not focus on this aspect as they are clearly outlined in the document, however this component plays a vital role life in China. Also important to note are the implications of public disruption. This concept ties into our previous discussion of China's fear of organization and outlines its policy and legal power to deal with such matters.
The above quote suggests that ''belief' in the state was one of the principle forms of chinese religion". Document 19, applied to Article 36, shows us that the goal of the party is to have "belief in the state" be the only "religion", so to speak, of China.
Document 19 is essential to understand religion in China because it gives the PRC's reasoning behind its religious policy. While China has almost completely abandoned its communist/socialist ideology, its interesting that this document includes much about socialism and Marxist ideology. For example, it mentions that socialism will eventually eliminate religion as necessary. So if we look at China this way, we can see that the eventual goal of the PRC is to eliminate the need for religion and have the country place its faith in the state. Party members who have already pledged undying alliance are not allowed to be religiously affiliated, creating a model for the new Chinese citizen.
ReplyDeleteDocument 19 also illuminates the Party's reasoning behind banning certain religious groups, and the wording used in the document makes it easy for the PRC to have ultimate authority in deciding what Article 36 terms a "normal" religion. We can interpret "normal" to mean "whatever the Party sees as non threatening", thus the constitution is effectively giving the state permission to persecute all other religions. Technically, it is legal.
Its interesting to think of this as legalized persecution. China breaks no laws by imprisoning religious followers and persecuting practitioners, because no law offers them protection. We can say that China is violating the human rights of its citizens, but at the same time, why should China care what we think?
I think it is worthwhile to compare Article 36 to the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment's establishment clause reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Comparing this with Article 36, we see that Article 36's first sentence seems to be very similar to the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment, however once we continue to read, we see that the Chinese government has provided itself with numerous exceptions to what it stated at the beginning of Article 36. The Chinese government provides its citizens with partial freedom of religion whereas the United States provides its citizens with nearly absolute freedom of religion so long as the religion in question does not break any other laws. This is one way in which we can see that China is clearly far from being a country in which its citizens are free.
ReplyDeleteArticle 36 seems to almost contradict itself immediately after it says it will provide freedom of religion to its citizens.
In Document 19, it says, "A person who was previously a nonbeliever has the freedom to become a religious believer, and one who has been a religious believer has the freedom to become a nonbeliever." This line seems unusual to me because the Chinese government obviously did not follow what is written here in its handling of the falun gong movement. I think the Chinese government respects non-believers' choice to convert as long as it is not a mass conversion of several million people at once as was the case with the falun gong movement. The Chinese government, being atheist, would want as little religious conversion as possible, but nevertheless allowed people to become religious so as to not cause civil unrest. The falun gong movement was too much too fast, however, and the Chinese government became fearful of any spiritual movement which could grow with such speed.
ReplyDeleteThe beginning of Article 36 of the Chinese Constitution is, I believe, very direct and clear. It states that no state or public organization or individual may attempt to influence the religious beliefs of any citizen. The rest of the article, however, is less succinct. The rest of the article states, “The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state.” This section of the article is much more open to interpretation, which leads to problems. When the state is corrupt and overpowering, like the current Chinese Communist government is, the tenets stated in article 36 can easily be skewed. Obviously, the government cannot openly attack old-standing religious institution like the Catholic Church in China without serious backlash from its citizens. However, with a fairly new movement such as Falun Gong, the government is attempting to stomp out any group that is not state-dominated. The fact that Falun Gong is a practice concerned primarily with spiritual and moral cultivation, which are undeniably good things, is not taken into account.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem with the wording of Article 36 is that it uses the phrase “normal religious activities” and “disrupt public order.” “Normal religious activities” might cause misunderstanding about the concept since the word “normal” itself from the start is very ambiguous and subjective. I think the state of being normal involves cultural relativism because China consists of too many cultures and religions. One religion could be normal to one culture but abnormal to another. Therefore, I think there isn’t that much problem with this wording, because there should be some mutual understanding and toleration of different religions. On the other hand, the phrase “disrupt public order” caught my attention. This also recalls the problem with subjectivity. The word “disrupt” cannot be understood as one meaning. The disruption to the farmers can be the modified laws on their farming, to the import merchants can be increased tariff and to the politicians can be the protests against their dictatorship. I believe that the reason for numerous problems between Chinese politics and religion is that the politicians fear the disruption and try too hard to keep all the possible disruption down before it even happens.
ReplyDeleteAnd also just commenting on the general meaning of the article – the problem in China is that it does not require you to believe in any specific religion, but it requires you to believe in the state. Maybe they are just implying to only believe in the state because most of the religions are monotheism; they don’t allow you to believe in any other “god.” Why put yourself in a dilemma, just believe in the state and it will solve all your problems just like god.
Article 36 makes religion a difficult subject in China because it uses the term “normal” to describe acceptable religious activities, it disallows the use of religious practices to “disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens, or interfere with the educational system,” and it states that “religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.” The first issue is the use of the word “normal.” This term makes religion a difficult political subject because it leaves the interpretation up to the government, which could make it variable. The interpretation of the word “normal” makes it possible for the enforcing agency to change their standards to accommodate the political climate. Similarly, the government is able to restrict many forms of religion if it interprets their actions as ‘disrupting public order.’ For instance, any religion involves a gathering of people. The government could decide at any time that such gatherings are disruptive and prohibit them. Also, per the restriction on ‘impairing the health of citizens,’ Falun gong could be restricted on the grounds that it affects the health of citizens. While it does not ‘impair’ their health, government interpretation could turn any sort of health effects (whether positive or negative) into ‘impairment’ because it affects normal operation. Lastly, religions such as Catholicism are influenced by foreign powers. Thus the government could decide that this outside involvement is unconstitutional based on this constraint. In these three ways, Article 36 leaves the constitutionality of religion up to government interpretation.
ReplyDeleteI think I am not unlike many others in that when I read Article 36, I felt that I wasn't reading a declaration of freedom of religion. It seemed as though I was reading a passage restricting religion. Others have pointed out the phrasing that stands out, and they are all restrictive or ambiguous. The comparison that Mitchell made to the First Amendment was striking, the American clause is simple, merely stating the freedoms given. The Chinese equivalent is filled with extra wording that I have already mentioned, what a difference! This article seems to be in the constitution in order to give the party in order a basis to control religions, rather than give the citizens freedom of religion. Document 19 seems to support some of these assumptions as it describes religion as something that is not exactly necessary for the population.
ReplyDeleteUpon examining Article 36 of the Constitution, which stated “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief,” it became evident why religion in China is such a difficult and complex issue. In particular, the line of the article which says, “The state protects normal religious activities,” was very revealing. Because what does “normal” mean? And who gets to determine the definition for what a normal religious activity entails? This means that religious activity is subjected to standards of those who wish to control it; in other words, the state controls what religious activity is deemed appropriate. The article further asserts, “No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state.” Thus, the freedom of religion that article 36 asserts in its title and first lines seems quite ironic. The ambiguity of the term “normal” as well as the further qualifications of what religion can or cannot do in the following lines suggest a freedom that is not so autonomous.
ReplyDeleteArticle 19 further describes the relationship between religion and state and China. Overall, one is supposed to believe that religious freedom is possible in China. However, much evidence points otherwise. For example, article 19 asserts that party members must be “sober-minded,” that is they must have no religious affiliation or inclination. As article 19 states, “To sum up, the basic starting point and firm foundation for our handling of the religious question and for the implementation of our policy and freedom of religious belief lies in our desire to unite the mass of believers and non-believers and enable them to center all their will and strength on the common goal of building a modernized, powerful Socialist state.” Thus, overall the goal is to unite the mass of believers and non-believers as one body where religion does not matter. The secular state is paramount over the supposed individual freedom of religion.
Document 19 was extremely... illuminating. The argument taken by the writer (that yes, in a perfect world, there will be no religion, but its not a perfect world yet, and the Communist Party can only help to create one by dealing with the world as it is now) was a very good one, but I kept being distracted by facts that struck me as unintentionally hilarious.
ReplyDeleteThe sentence I am thinking about occurred just after Section 9: Party Members and Religion; Relations with Religious Ethnic Minorities. It reads, “The fact that our Party proclaims and implements a policy of freedom of religious belief does not, of course, mean that Communist Party members can freely believe in religion.” My amusement, in this case, came more from shock than any genuine glee.
After reading the first few paragraphs of Document 19 and all of Article 36 (which included such gems as “the state protects normal religious activities,” the first mention of religious activities rather than belief) I should have acquired enough skepticism about the matter not to be particularly surprised. However, the “of course” still threw me. “Of course.”
Of course! That little phrase says volumes about the way the Chinese government views religion. The documents provided to use already show that sanctioned religious activity is tightly controlled, overseen by the government, and turned, whenever possible, to suit patriotic purposes. Religions which are not “normal” enough, or not patriotic enough, are stamped out as firmly as possible- because they then either do not qualify as a real “religion” or instead qualify as political “anti-rebellious” activity merely masquerading as religion. We already know this.
But the fact that Party Member are not allowed to follow any religion means that not only are all those who practice religious activity seen as somehow more primitive, but all those who hold any sort of religious belief (even beliefs sanctioned and protected by the government) are automatically second-class citizens. Not Party Members. Not eligible for any serious government role. And the “of course” means that the author of Document 19 is not laying down a strict law that he anticipates will be hard to follow. It’s perfectly normal, even expected, that those in government, those with any possibility of making influential decisions, “of course” must not be influenced by a force as primitive or superstitious as religion.
The Communist Party is a jealous god indeed.
I have to agree with my classmates. When reading Article 36 of the Constitution, the sentence, "The state protects normal religious activities," certainly jumps out, and relates to our study of Falun Gong. However, I would like to focus on the last sentence. "Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination." I feel that this is the key to the Chinese government's view of religion.
ReplyDeleteSection II of Document 19 describes the liberation of China from Catholic and Protestant imperialists. That is certainly a broad, negative view of "foreign religions." As we read further along, Section IV, Paragraph 2 states, "The guarantee of freedom of religious belief, far from being a hindrance, is a means of strengthening the Party’s efforts to disseminate scientific education as well as to strengthen its propaganda against superstition." And after naming the legal religious organizations in Section VII, the document states, "The basic task of these patriotic religious organizations is to assist the Party and the government to implement the policy of freedom of religious belief, [and] to help the broad mass of religious believers and persons in religious circles to continually raise their patriotic and Socialist consciousness..."
By granting religious freedom, the Chinese government knew it could appease the masses. However, by controlling and regulating the religions in China, the Party uses them as yet another means to foster unwavering faith in the state. The "opiate of the masses," indeed.
Article 36 is succint and direct about the state's policy on religion, religious toleration; however, it intentionally lacks specific definitions which allows the government to interpret and abuse its power whilst still abiding by their Constitution. Religions can't interfere with the state, and they must fall under the category of "normal" as determined by the state. The PRC has so many loopholes to work with, that the existense of Article 36 contains no real constraint on government power.
ReplyDeleteArticle 19 goes into the specifics of Article 36, making the state's view of religion much more clear, and its motives apparent. Even though it repeats the phrase religious freedom as much as it can, it lists a plethora of constraints on what, where, and who can practice it. You can't work for the state if you aren't a registered atheist, religous freedom doesn't mean you can "freely believe in religion." Only "normal" religions may be practiced, all 8 of which are preceded by the word Chinese, illustrating the states involvement and power over that religion. The state can take harsh actions against superstitious behavior or behavior that threatens the state. Children under the age of 18 aren't allowed to study religious texts or be influenced by their parents or religious community. This point in particular stood out to me as being impossible, as any child will lean toward the relgion of his/her parents. I'm accustomed to the idea of being "born" Catholic, but openly that doesn't exist in China.
Finally, in relation to the quote concerning the Chinese state, if the governments ritualized actions and communist ideology could be percieved as a religion, than it would be subject to its own cycle of religous downfall that it details in Article 19. It believes all religions are short-term problems, which will emerge, develop, then demise. If this is true, then the Chinese government is predicting its own eventual recession. In addition, it remarks that religion is a natural reaction to an "oppressive social system" which will eventually die as the communist utopia develops in the long run. But as we've discussed in class, religion is thriving in China right now. If this causal relationship is correct, might the PRC be encouraging religion as it tries to constrain it?
Some things Ive gleaned from article 36 and document 19 that tie in with your acutal question that I maybe forgot to emphasize earlier:
ReplyDeleteRelgion in theory is only protected so far as it can be considered a "religion", and the governing body is not free to believe in it.
Religion in practice is only alloed if it's patriotic enough, and then only when under the control of the state
Document 19 not only provides the Chinese government's reasoning behind the inlcusion of article 36, it igves us valuable insights into the way in which that article is implemented in modern-day China.
There is definite tension between state and religion, and the Communist Party is quite firm that its "chosen people" (the Party members) not deviate from the areligious doctrine, though some ignornance among the more primitive can be tolerated for now.
Becuase if the chosen people continue along their path, the day will come when the world will be perfect and prosperous and everyone will be happy and see the "truth" and just give up religion and this totally isn't just being scammed off every other millenarium movement ever before.(Sarcasm)
I also find it very interesting that Documement 19 mentions a crackdown on "Criminal and anti-revolutionary activity". That the Party still clings onto its identity as a "revolution" definitely seems to have some paralells with modern day religions, as does thier insistence that no one under eighteen be "forced" into a church membership- becuase that would make said indiidual ineligible for party membership, perhaps?
Yes, article 19 definitely shows some reason for tension between religion and state in China, tension that was already hinted at in the few lines of Article 36.
B Murphy
aka vrynosybookwyrm
In my opinion, the source of all of the religious diffculty in China lies with the wording of Article 36 of the PRC Constitution. It guarantees the protection of "normal" religions, but does not provide a definition. This allows for the Chinese government to constantly evolve the idea of what is "normal" depending on whether they feel threatened by a particular organized religion of belief. Also, there has been quite a bit of debate on whether Falun Gong actually qualifies as a religion. The practitioners themselves describe the movement as more of a spiritual belief system than an actual religion. Following this logic, Falun Gong would not be protected under Article 36 or Document 19. This would change the argument against China's human rights violations dramatically.
ReplyDeleteAnother item of note in Document 19 was the belief that "those who expect to rely on administrative decrees or other coercive measures to wipe out religious measures and practices with one blow are even further from the basic viewpoint Marxism takes towards the religious question. They are entirely wrong and will do no small harm." This quote from Document 19 shows that the communist government itself violates the basic tenets of socialism. The actions of the government constitute an attack on their own political ideology, the same crime they accuse Falun Gong of committing.
The ambiguous nature of Article 36 and Falun Gong's questionable status as a religion definitely contribute to the trouble in fighting against persecution towards practitioners in China.
The opening line of Document 19, which Anthony Yu also quotes in his essay, states that "Religion is a historical phenomenon pertaining to a definite period.....it has its own cycle of emergence, development, and demise." This view on religion proclaimed by the Chinese Communist Party constitutes explains pretty well why it has no issue shutting down "cults" such as Falun Gong that pose as a threat to the party.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it may sound absurd, this idea fits alongside the theories of magic that we discussed in class. "Religion....emergence, development, demise." Magic is what brings about religious changes, pushing old ones aside and making room for the new. While the party allows for the tolerance of "normal" religions, a statement which we have already agreed is very much open to subjectivity, the atheistic stance of the party looks not to distance itself from religion, but place itself above religion. By denouncing such a natural human instinct as a "phenomena of primitive peoples," they see no point in it, especially if it is ever changing and renewing itself. The fundamental ideals of the Communist Party will never be renewed.
So the difficulty with religious theory and practice in communist China is that, when one puts oneself above religion, there can be no real tolerance of anything else that captures people's worship. When it comes to the legitimacy of Falun Gong as a religion, as a "normal" religion, I think that under the constitution the Chinese government may have reason to condemn them. Article 36 states that religions must not "interfere with the educational system of the state." Again, subjectivity comes into play. Does the state educational system promote certain religions? If not, wouldn't it be acceptable to shut down practices that go against teachings established by the state? It seems there may be a loophole here.