China Bans Online Bible Sales as It Tightens Religious Controls

I get the impression this is much more likely to happen when one group of elites gets the country into an economic situation that will make them lose their power. In a way, they fucked up, but of course they don't see things that way. (I have never read in the history books about an elite that saw their actions justified by economic results. No their actions are "from God", "noble", "good for the planet", "socially just", "for the plebs", ... and so on. None of them accept the judgement that comes from the real world in terms of economic performance, in fact usually right before they lose power they attempt to falsify economic indicators on a very large scale, because at least some of them do realize that their justifications are bullshit and the result in the real world is all that matters. Those results are usually less than perfect)

Then the old elites and the powerless masses have something in common : they need the government to repress things with a heavy hand. The elites need the government to repress people, because otherwise their power is under threat, or even their persons. The powerless masses want the government to be heavy-handed because they want all the shenanigans and "gentlemen's agreements" that exist with the elites blown up, and they want their newly elected people to have the power to blow those up.

You see a sort of mini version happening currently. Both the middle Americans that elected him and the Bay Area progressives that hate him want Trump to have more power. Obviously things like legislating solutions to "fake news" are very, very bad for both of them, yet they both want it. I even understand how the reasoning works, and where they're both very very wrong.

The progressives want heavy handed government because "they're right" (they mostly are, of course, but) and the population just doesn't see that. So we must legislate and put rules for what the population sees, hears, and so on. Otherwise climate change action, future democratic/progressive politics, open borders, ... and so on are all in great danger.

... except of course with Donald Trump in charge of enforcement actions for this ... things are not going to go well for these causes regardless of the heavy hand. And the rights and powers that the executive power acquires as a result of this legislation ... will be aimed straight at them.

The middle Americans are tired of being marginalized and not listened to. They want their jobs (their industries) protected and left alone. They want limits on imports. Imports of people that complete on the job market, and imports of goods that put their employers out of business.

... except of course automation means this is useless. Furthermore, economically speaking these limits will lead to inflation, and they'll be the last ones to get wage increases. So if this indeed happens (as it appears it will) it will make their situation that much worse, not better. And of course that heavy hand will lead to more government bureaucrats interference in their lives and companies, not less.

The Chinese government tells us that its people support it 100%, but it continually acts like it is scared to death they are going to revolt.

> As a rule of thumb, anything that represents an alternate source of authority in China will be targeted and oppressed.

to be fair its the mistake that most autocrats make in not seizing control of religion. Religion is often the one available source of dissent. As the Shah learned in Iran; its a terrible mistake to make.

Don't forget Tibetan Buddhists.

His name was Hong Xiuquan, with Hong being the family name. The movement is known as Taiping Rebellion. It is taught but is portrayed as a just peasant rebellion against the Qing. However the connection with Christianity is only obliquely hinted at.

these people should read the link. Its a fascinating piece of history. If one had that native history one could understand a little more why they might persecute Christianity a bit more strongly than other religions.

None of that in any, shape or form ever seeks to justify it. Just understand it.

If you disagree with the justification, it would be better to explain that position. Otherwise it appears that you are starting from the premise that this is bad so any justification presented must necessarily be dismissed regardless of validity.

I don't think it's a justification, it's a contextualization.

If you liked that, check out the book "Wealth and Power": https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Power-Chinas-Twenty-first-Cent...

It's a book on the history of these revolutions from 1850 onward.

It may be oversimplifying to say that they're concerned with a power block arising from Christian churches.

They could be concerned with the cultural and viral ideas of the texts themselves. Religious texts beget mindsets, attitudes, ways of life. That could be the disruption to status-quo social order that they're worried about. It may be secondary for power-blocks to arise from people organizing around those uprising belief systems.

Anyway this might be just an administrative stepping stone; maybe just being more consistent in their long-existing sorta-soft-ban on religions, rather than deliberately taking a new step towards banning them even harder. Can anyone here advise how significant this is relative to the status quo?

Poland and Ireland yes, but that's because of popular support. The church despite its past popularity as well as its resources has little influence on politics in Spain, Italy, Germany.

The church has literally zero power to do anything in the UK.

We live in secular societies and I cannot believe your statement is provably true. No church/religion will ever go up against the power of the Chinese state, unless God herself returns to Earth...

Also, outside of Europe, the United States (Although church power there is not centralized in any one particular denomination.)

It's odd to see you speaking of the power of religious entities in Europe and staying silent on the Middle East, where they truly are a force that can topple kings.

You're absolutely correct. What I meant to say, it is now a western and particularly more so has become an American political tool.

One can only presume the same kinds that they faced between 1949 and 1994 or so. So essentially ... none at all.

What baffles me about Chinese people is how acquiescent they are. Ironically the fact that Chinese people trust their government so much is, at least partly, the cause that their government (especially on local level) is so ridiculously untrustworthy.

How untrustworthy ? It is generally accepted that about 80% of Chinese published economic indicators from public institutions are outright fabrication. If you look further into this and what it means, it is baffling. They are lies, and not just lies, but they are lies by people who do not themselves know the true numbers.

About the whole financial community is convinced that the Chinese government itself has no idea about the economic performance of the country because of this pervasive and onmipresent falsification.

In one famous case, a local governor from Mongolia is known to have promised to reduce steel producing capacity by about 20%. Not only did he not do it. He lied about it, and it took the central government about 4 years to realize it had happened (or at least, took 4 years before it was even mentioned anywhere).

The attitude in China must change. I mean, even if the communists just want to remain in power, they must find a way to at least get decent data themselves, as well as trustworthy governors.

No doubt... It's just strange China is literally chasing away some serious talent because they don't agree with their moral code.

Certain cardinals in the Vatican supported the Nazis. I don't see how the Kirchenkampf, Mit brennender sorge and the actions of Catholics in the camps were outweighed by those cardinals' actions, any more than the Belgians were Nazis because of Leon Degrelle.

Not strong supporters by any means, and many resistors. Wikipedia has a good page explaining the history. The most you can say is that some Catholics leaders were too compliant and did not protest enough, but countless other Catholics worked actively to save Jews from the holocaust and to counter Naziism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germa...

That Harvard article is really interesting, thanks.

Christians have been persecuted by polytheists, atheists, Muslims, and many others. Ancient Rome sent many Christians to the lions. The USSR had official state atheism, for example, and persecuted Christians. Certainly Christians have persecuted other Christians, but I think there's little evidence that Christians have been the dominant ones. Much more info is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians

On the other hand, clearly many atheists allow others to have different beliefs, including Christian beliefs, and to allow religious texts to be distributed (such as the Bible).

This seems to be much more about power and control over the Chinese people.

I assume it's because the Chinese government is officially atheist. (You could also add 20th century Communism to your list of significant persecutors -- not the same as the modern Chinese Communist party, but surely atheist.)

The stories include a historical person named Jesus who started a new religion after he died and was seen by his followers being alive after he was dead. These followers went on to become martyrs voluntarily.

I think it's pretty obvious why the Chinese government is so afraid of the Bible, since historically, people's lives have been changed dramatically based on what is inside the Bible. The Bible can only lead to instability.

To make a bad comparison, not everyone can develop antibodies upon mild exposure to a virus.

Ditto. By banning something, they just encourage people to seek it. Better to just expose the kookiness of all religions.

Even strident atheists (Bill Maher) are not exactly picky about mocking whatever form of "invisible friend" you delude yourself with.

It's just easy to mock an overgrown persecution complex and blatant hypocrisy on high-profile Christian/evangelists.

No religious flamewars on HN, please. Upthread was teetering, but here it plummets.

Athiests (the community) are known for being outspoken about the damage that certian religions have caused and are causing, but they're also known for supporting the free exchange of ideas including those that they think are harmful. Atheists (the definition) aren't known for anything because atheism doesn't demand any specific behaviors.

I think just because atheists don’t tend to care for the book. But yeah we’re typically less in to banning books than religious people so it is an odd comment.

I think they meant that it is evil; also atheiest-- people who do not believe in any religion, would not do such a thing.

I'm really not trying to start a tit for tat who is worse argument as all religions, including mine (Christian/Catholic) has their fair share of atrocities, but certainly many people were murdered and otherwise oppressed under state atheist regimes in Communist countries. It's worth calling out and remembering.

Atheists have a reputation for being anti-religion. This certainly isn't inherent to Atheism or reflective of all Atheists. However, I have met many Atheists who were highly intolerant or disrespectful of religion.

there's already a ton of censorship deployed worldwide, one of those is ban on literature spreading hate, killing and humiliation of others, and frankly - most parts of bible aren't very different in this. bible "morals" are extremely outdated

Apart from the fact that your statement is simply not true, every value "discriminates" towards opposite values.

In every hierarchy, when you define something as better, you automatically define something else as worse. That's how you make any decision in your life. The alternative is inaction.

It has nothing to do with religion. It's an axiom of every value system.

> remember that every religion teaches intolerance to other beliefs.

Every religion teaches disagreement with other beliefs, not every one teaches intolerance of them.

> every religion teaches intolerance to other beliefs.

Not so. Big difference (and spectrum) between a Buddhist saying "I think my way is better, try it for yourself, or don't!" and a (insert fundamentalist sect here) saying "You deserve to die if you don't think like me." You don't even have to be religious to claim the latter, some political belief systems will also do just fine.

Please don't put words in others' mouths. It's a disgustingly dishonest rhetorical trick, and it doesn't belong on HN.

atheism is unique in this regard because their intolerance stems from a higher Scientific Truth, so it is ok /s

The Nationalist Party of China in the 1920s adopted the Gregorian calendar. This is the group that the communists overthrew and they retreated to Taiwan in 1949/50. The communists never changed back... so the Chinese calendar is only used for traditional chinese events (like the chinese new year).

This is part of the period in china known as the Century of Humiliation (1839-1949)... which includes the invasions of western powers, opium wars, etc.

Unless you can point me to otherwise, I believe it is still the year 2018 of our lord and savior Jesus Christ as far as China is concerned in all of its international business and political dealings.

Historians everywhere have kind of already done that by replacing the Dionysian era system with the Current Era notation system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

Kremlin was first built in 1485, most churches were built well before the soviet era.

As for persecution of clergy is true, I suppose it depends if you count mass murder, torture, and shutting down churches as persecution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-religious_campaign_during...