The Historical Foundations of Religious Restrictions in Contemporary China

Self Cite

Religious diversity in China has attracted considerable scholarly attention in both Anglophone and Sino-phone academia. Based on the quantitative and qualitative evidence in a representative sample of doctoral and master’s dissertations successfully defended in reputable Chinese academic institutions, this article identifies two characteristics associated with the usage of ‘religious diversity’ in contemporary Chinese scholarship. Firstly, ‘religious diversity’ is prominently applied to depict inter-religious rather than intra-religious relations. Secondly, ‘religious diversity’ is often discussed along with ethnic diversity. These patterns confirm, and further illustrate, a notable theme in the China-focused English scholarly works on religious diversity, namely, that the Chinese state plays a predominant role in the making and shaping of the country’s religious diversity. Moreover, the meaning, implication, and usage of the very concept of ‘religious diversity’ in contemporary Chinese scholarly discourse are also likely to have been directly influenced by the policies and rhetoric of the Chinese state.

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The State and ‘Religious Diversity’ in Chinese Dissertations

Tao

Griffith

2018

Self Cite

“…This seems to reflect a higher level of secularisation in the Chinese community, which could be a consequence of the forced process of secularisation undertaken by the Communist party during the 20th century (Tao 2017). While self-identification as non-religious could predate Communist China and the Cultural Revolution (1966)(1967)(1968)(1969)(1970)(1971)(1972)(1973)(1974)(1975)(1976), our data shows that those whose parents were born in China are more likely to declare themselves in this category, and given those people were probably exposed to this religious policy for some amount of time, it is likely to be a significant factor.…”

Section: General Findingsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…That is to say, the Hakka and Min Nan speakers appear to be significantly more religious than the Mandarin and Wu speakers. This is probably reflective of the turbulent and at times repressive religious policy on the Mainland during the 20th century (Tao 2017).…”

Section: Findings By Subgroup: Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Religious Affiliations of the Chinese Community in Australia: Findings from 2016 Census Data

Tao¹,

Stapleton²

2018

Self Cite

Through a systematic investigation-the first attempt of this kind-into the recently released 2016 Australian census data, this article presents a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the religious identity of the Chinese Community in contemporary Australia. Based on the empirical information derived from the census, this article details and interrogates the apparent high level of secularity among the Chinese community in Australia. It also demonstrates that, whilst Christianity is the most popular religion within the Chinese community, the proportion of people who claim to be Christian is significantly lower in the Chinese community as compared to Australia's general population. Furthermore, the proportion of believers in Buddhism, Ancestor Veneration, Confucianism, and Taoism within the Chinese community is significantly higher than the same proportion found within Australia's general population. It is also shown that even when using different definitions to demarcate the Chinese community, those being self-reported ancestry, languages spoken at home, or the birthplaces of parents, the religious profile of the community remains relatively stable. However, a further breakdown into ancestral, geographical, and linguistic groups reveals some noteworthy differences.

“…Salehi (1988) demonstrates that the Iranian Revolution of 1978 to 1979 largely benefited from the pre-existing organizations and leadership created by Muslim groups. Tao (2017) shows that only the Communists and Nationalists penetrated religious groups to advance their own agenda for violent uprisings during China's revolutions in the first half of the twentieth century. More directly, by analyzing the experiences of religious leaders and church members in the liberation struggles in Central America in the 1980s, Nepstad (2004) found that religious groups played the most important role in the process of mobilizing collective contention; this was due to the clergy's ability to use 'religious rituals, martyr stories, and biblical teachings to establish a link between faith and activism' among the church members.…”

Section: Trust Social Capital and The Roles Of Religious Groups In mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tsai (2007) finds that temples and churches may differ in political status due to particular geo-historical backgrounds: in China, temples usually develop indigenously, and they thus are usually better tolerated by the state and more closely cooperate with the state, whereas churches are believed to have higher subversive potential because of their historical associations with invaders and rebels. Tao (2012Tao ( , 2015 finds that collective contention is less likely to occur in villages with religious groups that simultaneously overlap with civic organizations and local authorities and are hence more likely to 2 For an explanation of the historical foundation of religious restrictions in contemporary China, see Tao (2017); for an update on the religious situation in China, including the country's new regulations on religious affairs that took effect in February 2018, see Albert (2018). serve as credible communication channels between local states and discontented citizens.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Agitators, Tranquilizers, or Something Else: Do Religious Groups Increase or Decrease Contentious Collective Action?

Tao

2018

Self Cite

This article critically assesses existing scholarship on the roles that religious groups play in collective contention. Researchers disagree on three main issues: (a) whether religious doctrines and values make religious groups more or less likely to launch collective contention; (b) whether religious groups reflect and reinforce politically relevant schisms and bring about regime change; and (c) whether the organizational structure of religious groups facilitates or prevents contentious collective action. This article urges researchers in the field (a) to extend their empirical enquiries into polytheistic, pantheistic, and non-theistic religions; (b) to conduct more cross-national and comparative studies; and (c) to think beyond the traditional framework of church-state relations. Calling for challenges to a one-dimensional understanding on the relationship between religious groups and collective contention, this article suggests that a better understanding of this relationship can be achieved by (a) explicitly defining the boundary conditions within which a theory works and (b) embracing a relational perspective that focuses not on religious groups per se but on their interactions with other social and political players.