Bush to stress religious freedom in China

BEIJING, China (AP) -- The White House on Saturday urged China to give wide media coverage to U.S. President George W. Bush's visit and said Bush would press Beijing about religious freedom, trade problems and the need for currency reforms.

Bush arrived Saturday evening in the Chinese capital. He was due to attend a church service on Sunday with his wife, Laura, before meeting with President Hu Jintao and other Chinese leaders.

U.S. officials have talked with their Chinese counterparts about coverage of Bush's visit by the entirely state-controlled Chinese media, said Mike Green, senior director for Asian affairs on the National Security Council.

"The basic expectation we have -- and we've made it clear to them -- is that they should give the Chinese people an opportunity to hear everything the president has to say on U.S.-China relations, just as we give the American people and the American press every opportunity to hear what President Hu has to say about U.S.-China relations," Green told reporters aboard Air Force One as Bush flew to Beijing.

"It's also important that the world and the Chinese people see that an expression of faith is a good thing for a healthy and mature society," Green said...

Almost all armed conflict today is rooted in Islamic separatist ideology. China also has its own problems with Islamists. There are some 20 million Muslims in China and violent clashes continue, particularly in the Xingjian province.

China's policy on religious freedom has always seemed draconian to me, until I learned about Islam. While I applaud Bush for having the courage speak out against Chinese economic practices and suppression of speech, I think its all uphill with respect to religious freedom.

As unthinkable as it is, with respect to religion ONLY, I side closer to the Chinese view, that only "normal religious activity" should be permitted. However, as I see it, the only abnormal activity is that practiced by Muslims, because Islam when boiled down, is the only religion which creates passionate blind adherence, marrying religion and government while disavowing the golden rule and replacing it with Jihad.

There are two problems. Policy and PC correctness requires the president to talk about "religion" broadly. I think the Chinese have no choice but to clamp down on their Muslims, who are eager to start some terrorism and break away as separate countries.

The other question is Christians. There is a large and growing Christian population in China. Catholics are persecuted over the issue of belonging to the State Church. The Vatican has vainly tried to compromise.

There is also a substantial body of Protestant Christians, also persecuted.

What needs to be negotiated, though no doubt awkward in our politically correct age, is tolerance toward Christians. The Chinese saw what happened to the Soviet Union in Poland and need to be assured that this is a different kettle of fish entirely, since they are not foreign occupiers.

>>Whose that? Richard?

No, it's not Richard.
He's a Christian, so hated
that after he died

and they buried him
people dug up his body
and "executed"

his corpse. Of course, now
some see him as a hero.
I'll give you a hint:

In his film story,
Richard Harris portrayed him . . .
(My point is simply

if you think Islam
is the only religion
which creates insane

violence and deaths
on a grand scale, then you must
read more deeply on

the Reformation
as it played out in England
and its follow-up

in England and France,
the Counter-Reformation.
There's very little

Muslims are doing
that wasn't done first, bigger,
by the bickering

factions on both sides,
Protestants and Catholics.
Even the death tolls

from 9/11 and
Iraq pale when compared to
the death tolls from, say,

St. Bartholomew's.
Many folks demonizing
Islam seem to need

to review Western
history. Some Muslims suck,
so did some of us.)

Strawman argument >> "if you think Islam is the only religion which creates insane violence and deaths on a grand scale, then you must..."

I make no apologies for disobeying PC norms. Why it is people knee-jerk the same tired strawman arguments when some poor soul dares to critisize a religious doctrine is a constant source of amazement. Its my experience that people that do so havent researched Islam.

No one is making the argument that religious violence is soley the domain of Muslims. Almost all armed conflict TODAY is fueled by Islamic separatist idealogy. Certainly recanting history can be useful in debates with arrogant members of other religions, but its not clear how else such remarks apply here, today.

Do you suppose the problem is OUR LACK OF SENSITIVITY...is that it? If I believed for a minute that greater acceptance of Islam would stop the war of Islamic separatists in Thailand or Uzebekistan, I assure you, I would capitulate. However the opposite appears true. The more tolerance we show in the face of their intolerance, the more the beast is encouraged.

I am not "judging" muslims per se, merely distinguishing the threat of Islam to our lives and lifestyle. If I support war against them, it is not out of a belief of greater righteousness, but merely self-preservation.

Feel free to hate all religions the same or hate none, I dont care. As for me, I recognize that all religions are unique. Some having no effect on the world and other having great effect. I wont be PC about this...some religions foster more violence, as a DIRECT RESULT of their doctrines, than others. Some religions evolve and some dont. I simply analyze cause and effect, without the shakles of political correctness.

Quran 9.29 (in context) "Fight (murder) all who dont not believe in Allah..."

Islam is a literalist belief, meaning Muslims are almost entirely fundamentalists or literalists. The Quran is unquestioned direct word of God. The Quran is written in the PRESENT TENSE, which is a major problem because as a result, a massive percentage of Muslims believe the Jihadist ayas (genocide verses) are standing commands from Allah. Not all believe this, but a majority do and from that majority, you get Jihadists.

HISTORICALLY, the Islamic empires asserted a simple dichotomy where all people stood in their eyes ---"The House of Islam and the House of War". Either you were muslim or you lied in a frontier of war / future Jihad.

Source: Bernard Lewis, The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, Schocken Books, New York, 1998, pp.121-122.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.