MCLC: Putin wins Confucius Peace Prize (11)

[Denton, Kirk]

MCLC LIST
From: Bill Goldman<billgoldman at mac.com>
Subject: Putin wins Confucius Peace Prize (11)
***********************************************************

I suppose that, agreeing with Sean Macdonald that this topic is worth a
few posts, as well as the evident fact that I need to clarify my expressed
views, I will respond to Lucas Klein and to John Sexton. First off, Lucas
Klein claims that I think his beliefs (that is, his atheism, which
arguably is a lack of belief - in God - rather than a belief as such) are
"fundamentally immoral or unconscionable", but I never said nor meant
that. What I think is immoral and unconscionable is the CCP's officially
imposing atheism on all its members, i.e. on anyone who wishes to join in
the business of running the country. I would not think it any better if a
"Christian" government made and enforced a 'law' that only Christians
should be permitted to run the country or be in any official position of
influence.

I do indeed argue that "China deserves freedom of religion" - I would go
further and include freedom to be atheist. It was the totalitarian,
official enforcement of one belief (or absence of belief) that I found and
find intolerable. I said nothing about atheism's being itself immoral or
unconscionable, but anyway, I believe in freedom of opinion & freedom of
speech. I am sorry Lucas misunderstood me and can only ask him politely to
read my posts with more concentration if he wishes to know what I think.

As for John Sexton's post, I did not, I hope, say or imply that China's
atheist tyranny "was behind this initiative" directly. My point really was
that the kinds of attitudes promoted and enforced by the officially
atheist government and party give effect to, provide a context and
encouragement for, exactly such initiatives - even if they preferred to
"distance themselves" from this particular one (perhaps because they did
not want to look too ridiculous in the eyes of the rest of the world.)

Mr Sexton quoted from Jonathan Watts's article, with apparent approval:
"Although these setbacks [i.e. the Beijing government's disowning of the
prize] looked likely to mark the end of the group, the original organisers
reformed in Hong Kong  which is not bound by the same rules as the
mainland." 

Since Mr Sexton's conclusion (which immediately followed from this quote)
was that this shows that it cannot have been the so-called "atheist
tyranny" that was behind it, one assumes that he means that Hong Kong (or
at least some HK-ers) are even more keen to show how anti-dissident (in
particular of course anti-the dissident Liu Xiaobo and the Nobel Prize
awarded him) they are than is the Beijing government - embarrassingly
keen, in fact, it would seem.

I do not think, let me add, that "religion restrain[s] people from
dreadful acts" - the view John Sexton ascribes to me. I think that true
faith (trust) in Jesus Christ does so, however. Notice, please, that
Jesus's worst enemies were the religious leaders of the Jews, that is of
the very people whose "religion" itself really came from God - Jesus never
denied that for an instant, but He denied that the Jewish leaders were
doing anything but misusing the Scriptures for their own, worldly ends. So
they conspired to kill Him, with the help of a traitor and a Roman state
indifferent to truth.

Atheism, I could point out, that is to say atheist governments, have in
the 20th Century been responsible for numerically far far more deaths of
their own people than all religious governments of any stripe since the
beginning of civilisation, put together. And the fact that atheism offers
no Absolute validation for conscience, for doing right rather than wrong,
makes it a creed (if I may use that term) far more susceptible to misuse
by tyrants like Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot than any religion - in my opinion.

Lastly, Mr Sexton can comfort himself, if he wishes to, that at least the
Chinese and Russian governments have vetoed any stronger action by the UN
against the - "butcher of Damascus", shall we call Assad? Approximately
3500 people have died in Syria, mostly at the hands of Assad's snipers and
soldiers disguised as civilians. Which other governments is China friends
with? Step forward Iran, Sudan, Burma, and of course North Korea all
guilty of shooting down their own citizens in streets and villages, en
masse. I for one am glad, on the whole, that they did not veto the UN's
aiding the Libyan civilians who were crying out for rescue from the tyrant
Gaddafi. Sometimes, it seems, even America can do right.

Since I wrote the above, more comments have been posted. Sean Macdonald
writes: "Using a euphemism like "atheist" for any political system smacks
too much of cold war rhetorical exaggeration." Really? I wasn't aware that
it was a euphemism: it is one of the stipulations for becoming a member of
the CCP, so many Chinese have told me. It may well be cold war
exaggeration, but on the part of the CCP not me, and not merely rhetorical
but in practice. I know that various religions have survived despite
fluctuating persecution - not only in China but elsewhere. Indeed, the
Christian saying is that "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the
church" (I think that's how it goes). So, Mao did his utmost to destroy
the church in China: now, there are approximately 80 million Christian
Chinese in the country.

Jim Dew makes a prior assumption that the "many gods" that exist "exist
only in men's minds." However, while nothing could be easier than saying
this, it proves absolutely nothing and is backed up by no evidence - the
very lack he claims to complain of in relation to those who believe in
God. In fact, of course, there is abundant evidence  for the existence and
the character of God. Jim quotes with apparent approval the sentence -
""Unless there is irrefutable proof of the supernatural, I think that the
workings of the universe can best be grasped by human understanding, which
alone can bring about the bright glories of the human mission." But this,
too, is a mere assertion, backed by no kind of evidence whatsoever.

What does the writer of it mean by "irrefutable proof"? If he means, the
kind of limited "proof" one is expected to provide for any scientific
fact, then this demand is self-defeating, since "science" in the modern
sense refers almost exclusively to materialist knowledge, while no one
claims that God is material. To use different words, how can a naturalist
science provide "irrefutable proof" of a supernatural God? And if it did
so, how would that of itself bring us into relationship with God of our
own volition, which is what He is said to want by His prophets in the
Bible. Probably this is not the place for a discussion of whether or not
"All scripture is given by inspiration of [lit. "breathed out by"]  God"
(2 Timothy 3:16), but certainly people's assertions and claims ought to be
clear and made clearly.

Nor do I, for one, claim that "a moral compass can only be found through
connection to one or another god or religion." This latter statement
merely reflects its author's prejudice or unproven assumption that the
"many gods exist only in men's minds." I don't think that religions lead
people to God - to the true God (for surely it is obvious that if there
really is a God, there can only be one?) I don't think it's better to be a
Buddhist or a Muslim than it is to be an atheist, necessarily. I think
many atheists may be closer to God than many people who think they are
religious. But that is not to say that there is no God - quite the
reverse. No faith has a Founder who claims and whose follower claim to be
God - only Christianity.

As for Rujie's post, I confess I could not make syntactical sense of it,
until the final sentence - " If we really feel bad for "the untold
millions [that] died at the hands of official and officially imposed
atheism," try to be more tolerant of different opinions and less
self-righteous and godly."

I take it - correct me if I'm wrong - that this injunction is directed at
me, but if so, I am at a loss to think how Rujie thinks I have been
intolerant of different opinions. It is I who has been arguing against the
official and often brutally enforced intolerance by the Chinese government
of different opinions; nor do I in the least wish to replace their atheist
tyranny with a Christian tyranny (if the latter is not a contradiction in
terms).

Tom Moran states that he was "mostly amused by the idea that because I
don't believe in God, I might just kill to hold on to power."

Of course, I never said nor implied that anyone who is an atheist is more
likely to kill etc etc. What I said, if people would please pay attention
before responding, is that the past century shows abundant evidence that
if someone does want to gain and hold on to power even at the cost of
millions of lives - atheism is a very convenient creed. How anyone could
argue that this was not so of Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot is, frankly,
beyond me - if anyone is arguing that.

But I never turned it round and said "Atheists are more likely to kill in
order to hold on to power". Having said that, I do think that believing
Christians are less likely to do so. I do find Tom Moran's second
paragraph puzzling: first, of course, I never said that "theists" are more
likely to be good guys than atheists. I was speaking of Christians and
never mentioned the word "theist"; I would be obliged if people would try
to stick to the point.

Mr Moran says that since I "...imply that Hamas is full of bad guys, and I
know they are theists too, then you can't turn around and tell me that the
difference between good guys and bad guys comes down to a difference
between atheism and theism."

First, I don't know that Hamas is simply full of bad guys, though I tend
to agree with Mosab Youssef the son of one of Hamas's original founders,
that they are the victims of the false teaching in the Koran. But
secondly, I certainly never said nor meant to imply that theists are good
guys and atheists are bad guys. How anyone capable of reading plain
English can interpret what I wrote like that is beyond me. To repeat,
atheism offers no absolute validation for following the dictates of
conscience, therefore it is a creed which - as we have seen on a massive
scale throughout the 20th Century - suits the worst kinds of dictators
very well. That is obviously not the same as claiming that all atheists
are mere would-be tyrants or would-be killers!

What is dangerous, Mr Moran, is to believe in a false god - whether that
god be Money, or yourself, or your Reason, or anything or anyone less than
God Himself, the real God. Who is your god? You certainly have one. It is
not a question of believing one is in possession of the sole truth, but
believing that one knows - through no merit of one's own - the true God
who really is the sole source of all truth. Or is it that you don't
believe in truth, really - everything is relative? Well, even that
statement is a statement of exclusive truth and can lead to as much
intolerance as any other such statement. All truth by definition excludes
error. Does that make all truth somehow 'intolerant' and erroneous?

"We should allow other people¹s truths to exist" - it's funny how those
who make such statements, instead of applying them (as I do) to the
Chinese Communist Party in particular, apparently apply them to me, who
have been arguing the exact same thing! Yes, we should allow other
people's truths to exist - even their untruths, if it comes to that, until
and unless God shows them their error.

Liu Xiaobo is entitled to his opinion of Confucius: he may be right, I may
be wrong, or vice-versa. I never claimed to be an expert on Confucius,
though what I have read inclines me to a favourable view of him; nor did I
assert that all of Liu Xiaobo's opinions are to be followed slavishly -
though to try to understand such a brave man better would no doubt be
worthwhile. It's another example, if you like, of what I said above: no
one is God, not Liu Xiaobo, not Mao Zedong, not I, except God Himself. To
believe this is precisely to be set free, not to be made the victim of a
tyranny. It is not possible for any human being or institution to enslave
someone who truly believes in the true God - nor should one place absolute
trust in anyone or anything less than God.

My apologies for such a long post! It's late and I'm tired.

Bill