They passed a Constitution in the late 19th century that protected freedom of religion. It was replaced in 1947 with a newer constitution that also provides freedom of religion. Prior to the late 19th century they didn’t have freedom of religion.
Does the east historically even worry about a single religion? I didn’t think it did.
Of course China suppresses religion, but it is heavily influenced by the Western Marx.
But I still think that claiming this law would be a violation of religious freedoms ignores the other issues/rights at play. What about the child’s religious freedom? What about the child’s right to not be subjected to abuse?
I don’t think something abusive should get a free pass just because it’s religious.
2 Likes
Sure, but it’s a question of what’s considered abusive. Is it abusive to teach a child about Roman Catholic holy days of obligation? I don’t think it is. But it seems like doing so would fall afoul of this law.
There are almost half a million Catholics in Japan. Are those parents and children’s & youth leaders & clergy all abusive criminals?
The slope seems slippery in both directions on this one. Without a law, parents can almost kill their children in the name of religion. With the law, the government can basically force atheism on children.
The article in the OP certainly leaves a lot of room to speculate and given that is all we have are sort of at the mercy of the journalist and editor of the story.
The Abe assassination provides some context on the motivation for the law. Perhaps the more interesting discussion in the absence of specifics of this law is around is the extent to which parents are given the freedom to use religion as a parenting tool or even make it a priority over raising their own children.
Here in the US it seems we have a constitution that clearly protects religion while giving minors practically zero rights. It’s a system we broadly accept, but i don’t think we challenge it much for the sake of children’s well being. That seems to be where the concept of the Japanese law comes in, to provide a tool to balance out that need. I think the question then is if the need is justified, and if so, then how do you work out the details that prevent the law from being abused?
1 Like
A few links on the topic from a quick Google search.
2 Likes
More carrot less stick.
I see nothing wrong with this law, and wish the movement like this could gain traction in the states to help prevent damage done by organized religions.
3 Likes
Would a child go to hell for not attending mass on a holy day of obligation? For that matter, can’t even an adult who hasn’t confessed clear that sin with some time in purgatory, in Catholic doctrine?
Honestly, telling a kid that you will suffer for all eternity if you don’t go to church today DOES strike me as abusive. And i don’t think the Catholic Church teaches that.
I am going to spend eternity in hell based on what I learned in Catholic school. I don’t know if anything has changed in the last 30 years, but skipping church was up near the top of the list of things you should never ever do.
I don’t think we have a good understanding of the damage done to children because of organized religion. We know about all the sex abuse scandals that have occurred, but ignoring those most people generally see religious organizations as positives influences on children. That might be true the vast majority of the time, but has there been any real study done on the topic? Zero chance any politician would even mention the idea of it.
2 Likes
The elephant in the room is that Christians teach that if you don’t believe in Jesus Christ as your savior, you will go to hell. “Going to church today” is just window dressing.
1 Like
But this has very different meanings depending on the flavor of christianity. For the roman catholic church, it was always very important that it represent god’s grace on earth, hence going to church and receiving mass being so important.
remember, too, that latin christianity’s heavy emphasis on the fate of individual souls also played a key role in the development of liberal democracy, a system of government organized around managing the interests of individuals.
some eastern religions teach that there is no individual, as i understand it. i am humble about the meaning of religious traditions that are not my own, If i were not humble that way, i could see myself being horrified at that notion. when individual teachings are ripped out of their context, and put into a different one, they change their meaning.
I don’t think that is an entirely accurate statement. Some denominations actively teach that concept but I think many of the “mainline” protestant denominations (Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.) don’t really talk about what happens if you don’t accept Jesus other than you won’t be saved. The modern concept of hell requires a lot of tortured interpretation of the bible.
1 Like
…or an awareness that Christianity as we know it today has borrowed heavily from neighboring/preceding religions.
I believe the modern concept of hell was initially imported from the Greeks.
This. Kind of interesting that the government is arguably doing what the assassin wanted.
It certainly sounds like they do in this case.
I think the word “necessary” is a bit unfair. Religions are memes. They may include useful or healthy concepts. But relogions also include things that help their own survival and hurt people.
The (often typical) Christian concept of hell is that everyone is going there, unless they believe, (maybe) participate in some rituals, and spread the belief. That concept obviously maximizes the religion’s fitness, whether or not it helps people actually live.
There’s probably some useful things in there, including an “elf-on-the-shelf” way of policing your people. But by far the most obvious benefit of “Hell” is to the religion itself.
1 Like
what i mean is that in the west, religious unity was away seen as key to political unity. certainly this was true between constantine and the united states.
i’m not sure the east has this. that’s different from worrying that a single, minority religion might be destructive to society.
1 Like
Oh yeah, I see. I’m not sure but I think I agree, at least for Japan?
If I had to choose one of those options I’d err in the direction of not endangering kids. I know I’m in the minority.
3 Likes