Living with Religious Diversity

The concept of religious freedom has been an ongoing discussion for millennia, if not forever. We have artifact proof that as early as the Mid-6th Century B.C. King Cyrus the Great, who conquered Babylon had his decree inscribed on a cylinder that there must be religious freedom and rights of enslaved exiled peoples. The cylinder had been unearthed in 1879 and can be seen in the Smithsonian Museum in Washington DC.

For so far as we know about humankind, the belief in the supernatural has played a not to be underestimated role in the development and demise of tribes, and even nations. Groups of people tend to distinguish themselves by belief systems, languages, and rituals. Over time they may change, or even develop into new movements. One may be Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jew, Taoist, or Buddhist; or one may be Dutch, English, Chinese, or Indonesian. All these cultures are distinguished by their own belief system. Religion or cultural values may be mixed; or as in some nations, a religion, or even non-religion, is enforced together with national identity. In either case, so long as people exist, and so long as people have the creative ability to work things out in their own mind, in accordance to their own conscience, there will always be a clash between belief systems and values. This clash will remain no matter how much people and ideas are suppressed. Humans are human, because of this ability to think independently. Take this ability away, and humans become robots, or animals at best. The discussion is not on how to destroy differences, but how to live with them.

The Need for Conventions and agreements

And this is where conventions or agreements come in. Such agreements existed between Papua tribes in New Guinea, where I grew up in the early 1960’s. When there was a conflict between tribes, they would work it out in a war. But there were rules to solving a conflict. War was allowed, but genocide not – that was inhumane. And only the losing party was allowed to set the date of a new war. This could go on until both parties had equal number of casualties. Then it was a tie, and the conflict was over. Another rule was that once the victorious tribe had won the war, the kapalla kampong, the tribal head, of the losing village, was eaten in a big feast. By the way, I have it from first-hand that the tastiest part of the body is allegedly the ligament between the middle of the hand and the thumb. But that may be just a matter of opinion.

What is relevant in the story is that agreements and rules negotiate some sort of balance in conflict. And there are consequences of breaking an agreement. It is descent into chaos! Any society that gets into this trap, falls below the threshold of humanity. Corruption will fall into the loss of the value of human life, and eventually, in societal extinction. In the current news we can see so called failed States that have gone into that direction. They spiral down into the demise of either complete self-destruction, or the hope of taking agreements seriously again. Social order is based on these conventions and agreements.

Two such agreements were made by Taiwan in 1967. Later they were incorporated into domestic law as the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. One would think that the Taiwanese people, whose ancestors were traumatized by war and lawlessness in China in the early part of the 20th century, would take these covenants seriously, and apply them to all parties equally.

Not so! To the extent the Tai-Ji-Men proclaim peace and conscience to the world, they are denied the right to receive such. Even after the courts acquitted the Tai-Ji-Men, after more than 25 years, the Taiwan National Tax Bureau has been allowed to illegally act with impunity. This does not just victimize the Tai-Ji-Men and puts a serious blemish on Taiwanese rule of law, but it signals the slow process of judicial transition. Why is it that the National Tax Bureau seems to have more power than the courts? And one wonders, too, what is the value of agreements if they are not upheld?