China Cracks Down on Muslims' Freedom to Observe Ramadan

[Debater Slayer]

China is reportedly cracking down on Muslims' freedom to observe Ramadan:

China is trying to prevent people from fasting during Ramadan in the predominantly Muslim province of Xinjiang.

According to the World Uyghur Congress (WUC), officials in the region ordered all restaurants to remain open and a series of measures have been put in place seemingly designed to prevent people observing the holy month.

The region is dominated by the ethnically distinct Uyghur people, a group who have suffered years of repression as Beijing has tried to wipe out religious expression and all forms of allegiance to institutions other than the Communist party.

Source: China is banning Muslims from fasting during Ramadan

Further evidence that not having an official state religion doesn't always guarantee freedom of religion.

 

[leibowde84]

China is reportedly cracking down on Muslims' freedom to observe Ramadan:



Source: China is banning Muslims from fasting during Ramadan

Further evidence that not having an official state religion doesn't always guarantee freedom of religion.

It has nothing to do with not having an official state religion. That is an extremely dishonest assessment. China is a communist country. They have animosity towards any religious adherence. So, it has no connection with any capitalist nation.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It has nothing to do with not having an official state religion. That is an extremely dishonest assessment. China is a communist country. They have animosity towards any religious adherence. So, it has no connection with any capitalist nation.

I have no idea how you concluded the above from my statement. My point is that lack of an official state religion is not a foolproof way to ensure freedom of religion, which is an argument I've seen come up before. The OP is not meant as criticism of state secularism, since I'm completely for the latter.

You could have asked what I meant instead of assuming dishonesty.

 

[suncowiam]

China is reportedly cracking down on Muslims' freedom to observe Ramadan:



Source: China is banning Muslims from fasting during Ramadan

Further evidence that not having an official state religion doesn't always guarantee freedom of religion.

Sounds like communism to me. I don't think it has to do with religion but to do with ideologies.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

China is reportedly cracking down on Muslims' freedom to observe Ramadan:



Source: China is banning Muslims from fasting during Ramadan

Further evidence that not having an official state religion doesn't always guarantee freedom of religion.

Yeah this has been an ongoing thing. Despite a lot of what I said I can feel for the Uighurs. They haven't really done anything as far as I can tell but the CCP (Chinese communist party) is kind of full of hateful idiots willing to abuse people. Add this to all the **** they have done to Falun Gong / Falun Dafa practitioners and it's kind of obvious who the villain is in china right now.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

@Debater Slayer @Sartre @leibowde84 I'd just like to say if you guys are interested in this topic I've recently got a book called The Souls Of China : The return of religion after Mao by Ian Johnson. It's really interesting and if you are at all interested in religion in modern china I would certainly recommend it. It's 10 bucks last I checked on amazon.

 

[LuisDantas]

Further evidence that not having an official state religion doesn't always guarantee freedom of religion.

I am all for secularism, but I must agree. There are no substitutes for genuine good fath, good will and discernment.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

None of these measures force people to eat.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Further evidence that not having an official state religion doesn't always guarantee freedom of religion.

Communism is always the official state religion where it exists. Totalitarianism doesn't foster freedom of anything.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

None of these measures force people to eat.

I was reading through the replies, waiting for this one... I am surprised it took this far into the thread to get there.

On a scale of 0 to 100, how would any of you rate the amount of "oppression" exemplified by an order to "force restaurants to remain open", when the target of said "oppression" is a group actively trying to fast during the same time? My vote is zero. If anything it is more an example of a candidate for making the "dumbest plans I have ever heard" list. How does keeping the restaurants open do anything more than tempt those fasting? Are we saying there wouldn't be such temptation otherwise? And are we crazy?

 

[LuisDantas]

If all that is being done is allowing / ensuring restaurants to remain open, then I must agree that at first glance at least it can hardly be called oppression.

But I must first ask whether those restaurants wanted to close, and why is it perceived as necessary to deny them that right.

Unless it is established that those restaurants being open is somehow vital for social needs, it seems like an attack at the rights of those restaurant's owners and possibly workers as well.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I was reading through the replies, waiting for this one... I am surprised it took this far into the thread to get there.

On a scale of 0 to 100, how would any of you rate the amount of "oppression" exemplified by an order to "force restaurants to remain open", when the target of said "oppression" is a group actively trying to fast during the same time? My vote is zero. If anything it is more an example of a candidate for making the "dumbest plans I have ever heard" list. How does keeping the restaurants open do anything more than tempt those fasting? Are we saying there wouldn't be such temptation otherwise? And are we crazy?

I read through the article twice thinking I must have missed something important in the body which justified the headline, let alone the OP's interpretation of the headline, whose hyperbole has no meaningful connection to the facts.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I read through the article twice thinking I must have missed something important in the body which justified the headline, let alone the OP's interpretation of the headline, whose hyperbole has no meaningful connection to the facts.

The only things I see are the 24-hour shifts for "party activists" - which, I suppose if some of those are Uyghur, then that would definitely suck for those that were - but it mentions abstaining from drink, which only has to be done until sunset - so even on a 24 hour shift, sunset and beyond would be a full 8-10 hours during which imbibing fluids would be acceptable. And the other thing was trying to make students attend sporting activities - which would burn calories, etc. but only applied to Fridays, apparently. I don't know... still seems rather tenuous.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The only things I see are the 24-hour shifts for "party activists" - which, I suppose if some of those are Uyghur, then that would definitely suck for those that were. Though in the same paragraph it makes the gaff of saying "which make forgoing food and drink almost impossible" - who is forgoing drink? Anyone plan on dying of thirst for Ramadan? And the other thing was trying to make students attend sporting activities - which would burn calories, etc. but only applied to Fridays, apparently. I don't know... still seems rather tenuous.

Sadly, it's not an uncommon example of much "journalism" these days. A few decades ago, a high-school newspaper editor wouldn't let through what primary media sources publish these days.

 

[leibowde84]

My point is that lack of an official state religion is not a foolproof way to ensure freedom of religion, which is an argument I've seen come up before.

I apologize. I agree that this is a silly claim.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Sounds like communism to me. I don't think it has to do with religion but to do with ideologies.

I think it has to do with both, since religions are a subset of ideologies.

This kind of thing is not exclusive to religion, though, as far as I can see.

 

[Debater Slayer]

As my response to OP,
Did anybody ever think that the lack of a state religion would lead to freedom of religion, 100% of the time?

I've seen that argument come up from time to time, yes, which is part of why I cited the example in the OP.

 

[Debater Slayer]

None of these measures force people to eat.

I was reading through the replies, waiting for this one... I am surprised it took this far into the thread to get there.

On a scale of 0 to 100, how would any of you rate the amount of "oppression" exemplified by an order to "force restaurants to remain open", when the target of said "oppression" is a group actively trying to fast during the same time? My vote is zero. If anything it is more an example of a candidate for making the "dumbest plans I have ever heard" list. How does keeping the restaurants open do anything more than tempt those fasting? Are we saying there wouldn't be such temptation otherwise? And are we crazy?

I read through the article twice thinking I must have missed something important in the body which justified the headline, let alone the OP's interpretation of the headline, whose hyperbole has no meaningful connection to the facts.

The only things I see are the 24-hour shifts for "party activists" - which, I suppose if some of those are Uyghur, then that would definitely suck for those that were - but it mentions abstaining from drink, which only has to be done until sunset - so even on a 24 hour shift, sunset and beyond would be a full 8-10 hours during which imbibing fluids would be acceptable. And the other thing was trying to make students attend sporting activities - which would burn calories, etc. but only applied to Fridays, apparently. I don't know... still seems rather tenuous.

The measures don't officially force people to eat, that is. They seem to me kind of like forcing someone to take a walk in the South Pole but not saying outright that the goal is to force them to wear winter clothes.

I can see where you're both coming from, though; the measures seem mild compared to many other forms of religious/non-religious dictatorship, but I'm reserved about giving the benefit of the doubt to the Chinese regime given other instances of anti-religious bias and oppression on their part. I think it makes sense to view the measures as being intended to hinder Muslims' ability to fast.

If all that is being done is allowing / ensuring restaurants to remain open, then I must agree that at first glance at least it can hardly be called oppression.

But I must first ask whether those restaurants wanted to close, and why is it perceived as necessary to deny them that right.

Unless it is established that those restaurants being open is somehow vital for social needs, it seems like an attack at the rights of those restaurant's owners and possibly workers as well.

The full article mentions more than restaurants' remaining open.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'd say the argument could be made that the current red cult functions quite similarly to a religion.

It can and it has been made. If I am not mistaken, sociology usually treats communism as a religion.

That is not all that helpful, since there are so many understandings for that word, and some of them are very much at odds with each other.