Du Jiwen: Scientific Atheism and Its Social Responsibilities (Part II)
III. The Internal Core of Religious Belief and its Ideological and Social Nature
People's use of nominal concepts is often quite vague, whether intentionally or unintentionally applied to interpretation or writing; the resulting differences can be immense. The term "religion" is one such example. It is said that definitions of religion at home and abroad are too numerous to count; comrade Li Shen recently investigated its etymology, but here I will only speak of three current understandings held by people. First, it refers to religious concepts, including ghosts/spirits (souls), gods (God), the world beyond (heaven and hell), as well as supernatural forces (fengshui, the eight characters [1], special supernatural abilities), etc.; this is also the scope covered by "theism." Second, it refers to religious behavior—the actions through which religious concepts are expressed, such as sacrifices, prayer, worship, rituals, festivals, and related group behaviors. These often possess local and ethnic characteristics, and some even transform into folk customs. These two categories of "religion" manifest "belief" itself; they belong to the realm of pure faith, or possess cultural significance, but they lack ideological and social attributes. In this regard, if one says religion possesses "mass character," "nationality," or "long-term character," and will not disappear even in a communist society, I would not disagree. This is because their emergence is, to a large extent, constrained by psychological, physiological, and even pathological conditions, as well as the influence of traditional customs. Third, it refers to religious concepts and behaviors that have been ideologized and organized as social groups—that is, "religion" in the complete sense of possessing social functionality. This is constrained by the social base and subordinated to the historical laws of social development; here, theism is endowed with social functions beyond mere belief. Synthesizing these three forms of religion in the popular context, all share theism as a commonality; theism is the core of all religions. Examples such as Feuerbach's religion of "love," the modern religion of "morality," Einstein's religion which banished a personal God and exhorted priests to become teachers, and Zhang Taiyan's religion founded on "Yogacara philosophy" [2]—all of these have stripped away the theistic core and thus belong to the realm of atheism. They completely change the original meaning of religion. To incorporate atheism into the concept of religion is to speak of a "round square" or "white blackness"; it is a logical contradiction which this article does not adopt. Some refer to workers' parties guided by Marxism as "religions," but that is a political maneuver [3] not worth discussing.
Regarding the aforementioned social religious organizations and the countless sects, religion does not possess long-term permanence, only "historicity"; it does not possess inherent nationality, only "mutability." There are numerous examples of this in history and reality. The most influential "religion" of antiquity was likely Zoroastrianism (Mazdaism), which emerged around the 7th–6th centuries BCE. It was one of the intellectual sources of Christianity and likely influenced Buddhism as well. Its place of origin was Persia (Iran), it flourished in Central Asia, and it entered China during the Northern and Southern Dynasties. Its founder, Zoroaster, is translated into Chinese as "SuluZhi" and is commonly known in the West as "Zarathustra"—hence Nietzsche's The Sayings of SuluZhi is also translated as Thus Spoke Zarathustra. What was the final outcome of a religion with such immense influence? After the 7th century CE, it essentially perished in Persia and Central Asia; in China, it vanished after the Song Dynasty. It is said that today there are a very small or scattered number of believers in places like India. From this, we can see that its faith was not limited to the Persian people, and the Persian people who once believed in it discarded it long ago; the Chinese could accept it, and likewise could abandon it. Furthermore, it is said that religion has its own independent laws of emergence and development and cannot be fostered or abolished by administrative means—this is not necessarily true. The ancestral home of Buddhism is India, but after the 11th–12th centuries, it was basically driven out of the country. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, Chinese and foreign Buddhists hoped for its rebirth in India, but to this day it has failed to gain traction. It seems it never became the national religion of India, yet it continues to survive and prosper in the Han-Tibetan and Pali language families. Central Asia was once the most developed region for Buddhism; from the 3rd–2nd centuries BCE to the 7th–8th centuries CE, it was basically within the sphere of Buddhist influence, but it later became the unified domain of Islam. Buddhism was essentially annihilated by administrative or even violent means (refer to A History of Indian Buddhism by the Englishman A.K. Warder). The small remains of stone Buddhas in Afghanistan were also recently demolished by human action.
In the present day, the rate at which religions are born and perish has clearly accelerated—born quickly, dying quickly. As religions of the "New Religious Movement," nearly all possess this attribute of impermanence. As for Christianity, it spans the globe and is striving to become the state religion of relevant countries or the ethnic religion of relevant peoples. Is it not so? Since the Opium War, there has been a desire to Christianize China. From the implementation of the "China for Christ" project [4] in the early 20th century to the entry of "theology" into our country's higher education institutions and national research institutes today, it shows that Christianity is by no means content to stop at Western countries and be a Western religion. Rather, it expects other countries and peoples to change their non-Christian traditions and revere it as a state or ethnic religion. Conversely, it is a consensus that European Christianity is in decline. A single pedophilia scandal has stripped the Pope of his holy aura and bankrupted the church. Samuel Huntington wailed in his book as Americans, following the Anglo-Saxon Protestant faith, ask: "Who are we?" Its overall prospects are clear. All this proves that religion truly has no essence of its own, nor a history of its own; its essence and history lie entirely in its sociality. Its laws are governed by the laws of social-historical development. To understand religion, one must go deep into its social base.
How are religious concepts and behaviors ideologized to manifest their sociality? This requires the support of many empirical sciences, and this article can only provide a brief sketch. Existing major world religions can be divided into monotheism and polytheism. Taking Christianity as an example of monotheism and Buddhism as an example of polytheism: the core of Christian faith is undoubtedly God, revered as the only deity—this is the sole undisputed object of its theistic reference. Corresponding religious behaviors are prayer, sacrifice (the sacrifice to God later alienated into offerings to the Church), and other linguistic or physical acts directly related to the deity. All of this existed before Christianity became organized. We regard the Bible as the completion of Christian organization; it has circulated for nearly two thousand years and is still revered by believers as the only authoritative text. There are many works introducing and appreciating it, and the resulting theologies are countless and still proliferating. In the last decade or so, so-called "extra-ecclesial theology" [5] has also risen in our country, which, along with so-called "religious studies," has become quite popular in the "field of religious culture." But none of these can serve as the basis for understanding Christianity; to trace the source back to the root, one must begin with the Bible. The characteristic of the Bible is that it expands the "God-centered" faith into a doctrinal system expressed in the form of myths and legends, carrying the entire complex ideology of Christianity and becoming the original text upon which generations of theology developed various Christian thoughts. This appends or adds countless things to the simple belief in God that have little to do with faith itself. Here, I will briefly examine only those parts that are particularly closely related to our real life.
The opening of the Old Testament is Genesis, which mainly records God’s creation of the world and man. Note: that both the world and man are creations of God is a common point in monotheism; they can all be called "The Creator," the difference lying only in the name of the deity. The Chinese translation for the name of the Christian God is "Shangdi" (上帝) or "Tianzhu" (天主), while his original name is Jehovah. The natural world he created is said to be for providing for human survival and for humans to manage. As for the purpose of creating man, it is unclear. Some say the creation of the world and man was only to manifest "God's life and authority" and to "make the earth God's kingdom." Regardless, this establishes the fundamental relationship between God and man: God is the Father, and humans are God's children, so believers address each other as brothers and sisters; God is the Lord, and man is God's servant, so believers always have "Lord" on their lips and remain humble; God is the Shepherd, and man is the sheep being pastored—church ministers are the specialized personnel who pastor men on behalf of God; the sheep must forever depend on the Shepherd; God is the Bestower of Grace, and man is the recipient of grace—man must forever be grateful for God's grace, which is manifested as confession and offerings to the church priest. These form the first layer of Christian doctrine.
As everyone knows, the ancestors of humanity created by God were Adam and Eve, who lived in the Garden of Eden in heaven. The ancestors did not follow God's instructions and ate the fruit from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil," thereby gaining "wisdom" and "open eyes," and knowing the shame of nakedness. This angered God, who immediately cast them down to earth. He not only "cursed" Eve as a woman but also burdened the entire human race with "Original Sin." From then on, God regarded humanity as criminals, and humanity and God became enemies. Once, God was so angry that he decided to destroy all his creations, so he sent a Great Flood to submerge everything in the world, only showing mercy at the last moment to save Noah's family by having them board the Ark. God’s hatred for humanity was so deep and heavy that it prompted the Christian faith to treat human "redemption" as the sole priority of life. The common phrase in a believer’s humility, "I am a sinner," originates from this; and using offerings to atone for sins—the sale of indulgences—became a direct source of wealth for the church and the clergy. Thus, the theories of "Original Sin" and "Redemption" became the second layer of basic Christian doctrine. Among the scholars currently pushing to Christianize China, there is a faction that totally negates traditional Chinese culture, primarily on the grounds that Chinese people have been blindly arrogant since ancient times because they do not know they are sinful.
These two fundamental doctrines illustrate a point: man is a creation of God, and God absolutely cannot tolerate man possessing wisdom, especially the ability to distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, beauty and ugliness. Human nature is essentially evil; human life can only crawl on the ground, exhibiting "dog-like obedience and angel-like patience" (in the words of Heine), rather than standing tall and living a self-respecting, independent life. From the perspective of us Chinese commoners, God is used to keep the people ignorant; only by not "thinking" or lacking "thought" can the piety of faith be guaranteed. Clearly, these types of doctrine have exceeded the scope of theism and the original meaning of faith; they are a unique system of worldviews, life perspectives, and value systems added to the object of theistic faith, reflecting specific social relations and secular interests, and providing more space for the social attributes of Christianity to adapt.
Exodus contains the famous "Ten Commandments of Moses," which include the following words: "I am the Lord thy God—thou shalt have no other gods before me—for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." It is further recorded: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live—He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." These types of commandments or injunctions imbued Christianity with an external absolute exclusivism and expansionism, alongside an internal absolute closedness and cohesiveness. Both were intended to guarantee a high degree of unity in thought and belief and to maintain a high level of concentration in ecclesiastical organization. In practice, this manifested as a hostile attitude toward "pagans," serving as the internal rationale for launching religious wars. Internally, it implemented an extreme despotism of thought, serving as the classical basis for the persecution of heretics and the establishment of the Inquisition. Based on this, the large-scale burning and killing of witches under the name of "demons" was prevalent for two or three centuries, reaching its height from the 15th to the 18th century, and only formally ending in England and Scotland in the 19th century. According to Bertrand Russell's estimates, the number of people persecuted due to the commandment "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" reached into the millions. As for the implementation of "He that sacrificeth unto any god... shall be utterly destroyed," its inevitable effect was a constitutional addiction to war. The so-called "Crusades," wars against Muslim nations, occurred eight times over nearly 200 years (1095–1291). In a recent "slip of the tongue" by the US President, the Iraq War was also declared a "Second Crusade" [6]. As for Christianity's internal sectarian strife—the splitting of Eastern Orthodoxy from the unified Catholic Church, and later the split of Protestantism during the Reformation—not one of these divisions occurred without being utterly blood-soaked. For example, in the 17th century, "during the time of Cromwell, the English Protestants slaughtered at least thirty thousand Irishmen; to cover up their bestiality, they invented a myth that this was revenge for the slaughter of thirty thousand Protestants by Irish Catholics." This hatred continues to this day, with shadows still looming over the present. When Christianity spread to the Qing Dynasty, the so-called "Rites Controversy" [7] occurred. At the beginning of the 20th century, Western Christianity launched another movement to "occupy China for Christ," which triggered a nationwide Anti-Christian Movement [8]; behind this was colonialism, and its banner was found in its expansionist and exclusive dogmas. The practice of expansionist exclusivism is discrimination and infinite extension, the final forms of which are cultural aggression and bloody war.
Its "closedness" lies in the strict control of believers, using every possible means from ideological brainwashing to organizational punishment. "Atheism" is the greatest crime, "heresy" cannot escape the death penalty, and the enslavement of science is a matter of common knowledge. Of course, it is now difficult for religious trials involving life and death to exist openly in the West, but this does not mean other monotheisms do not continue to use them in certain places. The "awe-inspiring" power possessed by doctrinal intimidation and seduction is rare in today’s open world and is quite terrifying. Some scholars use the beautiful term "cohesion" (内聚力), treating it as a virtue that today's Chinese culture should emulate; one wonders what kind of thinking this represents. The New Testament saw some changes and is particularly esteemed by "Protestantism." For instance, the Old Testament emphasizes revenge: "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is its famous phrase. The New Testament does the opposite: "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." The Old Testament says: "thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy," while the New Testament says: "Love your enemies." Thus, "tolerance" and "love" became the loudest and most popular slogans for Protestantism in spreading the "Gospel." Among these, "love thy neighbor as thyself" is regarded, along with the Confucian "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you," as the Golden Rule of morality. Aside from the test of practice—"judging them by their deeds, not their words"—we might as well look at the actual content of the original text. The Gospel of Matthew is the first book of the New Testament; we will use it as an example: "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
This "first" and foundational commandment is to love God. Your love should not be selfish or limited only to self-interest, but should simultaneously be applied to others and shared with them. Therefore, because you love God, you should make others love God. Because you do not wish to go to hell but love the eternal life of heaven, you should also make others understand these doctrines and believe in this religion. In this way, "love thy neighbor as thyself" is equated with proselytization, becoming an emotional investment in mission work. By the same logic, one can understand the true meaning of "love your enemies" and why this is called the "total summary of all doctrines" in Christianity. There is a song nowadays—"Let the World Be Filled with Love"—which is a wish of us ordinary people, but it is fundamentally different from the "universal love" of Christianity. This is not my arbitrary judgment; there is scripture to prove it. Jesus said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."
Scholars studying religious ethics should not overlook this kind of content in the New Testament. If even the relationships between one's own parents, children, brothers, and sisters must be alienated, how can one speak of the "universality" of its love? If the relationship of brotherhood and sisterhood can only exist within the faith, or if one acknowledges God as the only Father, does that "love" not amount to declaring all non-Christians as enemies? "A man's foes shall be they of his own household"—this assertion itself is hair-raising. The best way to "love your enemies" is to make your friends, relatives, and neighbors all convert to Christianity and believe in God.
In the New Testament, exclusivism and closedness have not disappeared; rather, they have been strengthened. They are strengthened to the point of hating the family and abandoning relatives, where the only way to survive is through wholehearted attachment to Christianity—for the sake of faith, even death is life; a temporary death in exchange for eternal life. Correspondingly, there is an added mission that believers must proselytize and preach. Jesus said: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."
The Gospel of Mark repeats this injunction: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned... So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following." Those scholars of ours who are currently keen on promoting Christianity as a "universal religion" likely draw from these kinds of injunctions—as a believer, whether you are willing or not, you must simultaneously carry out the work of a missionary. In this way, if all believers and their scholars truly fulfilled this, the restriction on thought would become truly impenetrable—neither a needle could pierce it nor water splash through [9]. It would be strange indeed if it did not stagnate or perish. I believe there is great reason why people call the Middle Ages the "Dark Ages," despite some scholars' extravagant descriptions of the "light" of the Middle Ages in an attempt to rehabilitate it. The atheism that has emerged in the West since the Renaissance was primarily directed at Christianity, seeking liberation from the enslavement of Christian divine right and the shackles of medieval theology. Its fruits were the development of science and democracy, the death of feudalism, and the establishment of bourgeois civil society. However, the new type of society is still built on the foundation of class opposition. Christianity has undergone a soul-transforming reformation, but its nature has not changed. The Bible remains the same Bible; only the objects of enslavement and service have changed—people have moved from enslavement by divine right to enslavement by capital, and theology has moved from serving divine right to serving capital. Thus, in order to struggle against religions of this social nature, Marxism was born.
The reason I treat Buddhism as a polytheistic religion is that it has no single sacred scripture; its Tripitaka (three baskets) of sutras, vinayas, and shastras in Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan are incalculable in number. Its temples may be found all over the world, but they are not subordinate to one another and each acts independently. The deities it worships—as well as other objects of veneration like scriptures, pagodas, temples, and masters (Living Buddhas)—are also vastly different. This shows that although it is classified as a world religion, it is not unified in thought, belief, or organization. The only commonality is the insistence on karmic retribution and reincarnation (samsara), where one reaps what one sows; it does not recognize and even opposes a singular deity capable of creating the world and mankind. Theoretically, it advocates the "theory of dependent origination" (pratityasamutpada) and opposes "monocausalism." A major characteristic of Buddhism is that it integrates wherever it spreads, including the absorption of various deities and spirits into its belief system. Therefore, it internally dispels "false views" and externally opposes "non-Buddhist paths" (heretics). Overall, its doctrine is mild and its form of development is peaceful. However, one absolutely cannot deny that it simultaneously possesses the inherent exclusivism and closedness of religion; its social nature can likewise lead to religious discrimination and conflict. The Sutra of Forty-Two Chapters, the earliest Buddhist scripture to reach China, defines the human body as an "instrument of suffering" and the family as a "prison," regarding the abandonment of wife and children to become a monk as "noble"—such is its pessimism and world-weariness. The famous Mahaparinirvana Sutra regards the "icchantika" [10] as enemies, and the Bodhisattva Precepts deem it blameless to kill those who slander and oppose the Mahayana. Though these are extreme examples, they may reflect that the historical struggle between Buddhism and other religions was also very cruel. However, after Buddhism entered inland China, both its doctrines and commandments underwent fundamental changes. Ethically, it had to adapt to Confucian concepts; the idea that even "icchantikas" possess Buddha-nature and can become Buddhas became mainstream. Commandments were formulated locally, and both Mahayana and Hinayana rules were transformed. Buddhism in Japan differed from that in China; it once possessed armed forces and experienced sectarian wars. Tibetan Buddhism once served as an important link connecting the Han, Tibetan, Mongol, and Manchu ethnic groups, but the long-term system of the integration of church and state (theocracy) turned it into a historical reaction. Democratic reforms [11] liberated a million serfs and gave Tibetan Buddhism a new life; however, to clear away its influence and thoroughly realize the democratic principle of the separation of church and state, there is still interference from hostile forces to this day. All of these are the results of the social nature of religion—things added to it from outside the realm of faith.
IV. The Historical Role and Current Tasks of Scientific Atheism
Viewed from the West, the existence of scientific atheism as a mode of thinking is centrally reflected in the fact that scientific rationality has already occupied a dominant position in the field of modern human thought, and religion itself has been placed under the gaze and judgment of scientific rationality. Its existence as a lifestyle is seen in the degree and speed of social secularization, which has squeezed religious life into a position where it must change completely or become unsustainable. Religious feelings, religious ethics, and religious morality are being replaced by interpersonal feelings, human ethics, social morality, and even legal statutes. The era when religion encompassed all disciplines and commanded all lifestyles began to disintegrate as early as 200 years ago; today, the remaining territory for it is negligible. The rapid development of science, education, and philosophy makes religious theology appear increasingly small and insignificant. Some relics have entered museums or are preserved as cultural artifacts; some religious behaviors and holidays increasingly survive as traditional customs. The status and role of God have basically been replaced by the status and role of Man. In recent decades, religion has indeed shown varying degrees of resurgence in different regions, but a brief analysis reveals that this is primarily not its theism at work, but rather its social functions being artificially elevated and strengthened—its theism is being used by certain countries and groups as a means to seek political power and economic interests, representing a regression of civilization and a regression of history.
This situation urgently requires a comprehensive assessment and exploration, and must be closely linked to the overall landscape of international relations and social changes in relevant countries. For example, why have international terrorism, religious extremism, and ethnic separatism become global issues? Why is there always religious participation in localized wars and social upheavals—both those that have occurred and those currently underway—and why do they occur with such frequency? While we may not have the capacity to provide a full accounting and analysis of such matters, they constitute an absolutely non-negotiable background when examining the social functions of religion.
The current state of religious and theistic activities in our country also serves to illustrate several issues. Reform and opening up has allowed our nation to achieve significant, comprehensive development: the strengthening of productive forces and national power is unprecedented, the improvement of the people's livelihood is unprecedented, the prosperity of culture is unprecedented, and the degree of freedom for citizens is unprecedented. At the same time, however, the dregs have surfaced [12], and overseas infiltration has become more rampant. The emergence of cults like "Falun Gong," the surfacing of separatist forces such as "Tibetan Independence" and "Xinjiang Independence," and the expansion of overseas Christianity into the fields of culture, education, and remote areas are all dynamic trends rarely seen before.
In the face of this aggressive situation, a considerable number of Party-member intellectuals and Party or government cadres have come to view religion as a spiritual factor for maintaining social stability and preventing crime. They treat various forms of theism as untouchable "forbidden zones," while viewing atheism as unpardonable. The word "religion" has truly become so sacred as to be inviolable. This makes one wonder what time and place we are currently in, and "who rules over the ups and downs" [13] of this world. In fact, the spirit of the Central Committee's requirement to strengthen the research, publicity, and education of atheism has always been clear and unwavering. To clear away ideological obstacles, it has recently been emphasized that research, publicity, and education regarding atheism is a long-term task, which is not in contradiction with implementing the Party’s policy of freedom of religious belief. I would like to begin my discussion here.
What is "freedom of religious belief"? This concept is also Western. It was originally a slogan of the Western bourgeois revolutions in their opposition to feudal theocratic political rule and their demand for liberation from religious shackles. It later became an important principle in their national founding and constitutionalism. Marxism regards it as one of the outstanding achievements of the development of human civilization; the political parties of the working class take it as a fundamental policy for handling religious issues; and now it has become a civil right stipulated by our country’s Constitution. Its original meaning is to ensure that religious belief becomes a matter of completely independent choice for the individual, free from interference by any individual or organization, and from the influence of external forces such as politics or economics.
Therefore, freedom of religious belief inherently includes the freedom not to believe in any religion and to hold atheistic views. Thus, it is unified with—rather than in contradiction or conflict with—the various freedoms stipulated for citizens by the Constitution, especially the right to freedom of thought. Since the United States promulgated the "International Religious Freedom Act," specifically used to promote the development of religious forces in non-governmental organizations in countries outside the U.S., for some Chinese people, religious freedom has become the "First Freedom," and atheism has become "religion’s" primary enemy. However, the "International Religious Freedom Act" is merely legislation the U.S. has imposed upon the "international" community; the U.S. itself is not subject to it. Like Europe, the U.S. has not only driven religion out of the field of education, thereby limiting its freedom, but also possesses increasingly powerful non-religious organizations and atheistic trends of thought.
Historically, China has never had a "religious problem." In the realm of belief—which god one believes in, which one does not, or even what kind of god one wishes to create or discard—there was no power that exercised arbitrary interference. Fierce anti-theists and devout believers could coexist peacefully; religious discrimination rarely occurred, there was no religious persecution, and even less so were there religious wars. As everyone knows, Emperor Wu of the Liang Dynasty [14] was a famous devotee of Buddhism, while his subordinate Fan Zhen [15] was a champion of anti-Buddhism who wrote "On the Extinction of the Soul" (Shenmie lun). The Emperor, under the pretext that Fan Zhen was "violating the scriptures and betraying the Way," mobilized more than sixty princes, ministers, and eminent monks to write essays to surround and annihilate his position. In the end, besides leaving such a commendable record in the history of Chinese thought and culture, Fan Zhen's physical and mental well-being remained unaffected; he continued his official career and even seemed to be heavily relied upon.
Even the so-called "Three Wus and One Zong" [16] incidents, which Buddhism resents most, certainly involved disputes between Buddhism and Taoism, but in Chinese historiography, these were merely cases where the expansion of Buddhism had seriously threatened national stability. They were political measures, not religious motives. That is to say, in Chinese history, there was no reality of a lack of freedom in religious belief, and thus no necessity to cry out for "freedom of religious belief."
Despite this, the state's management of religion has always been strict. There are at least three boundaries that religion may not cross: First, it cannot harm the lives or homes of the common people, including their health and property. Second, it cannot endanger social order and public interest, including spreading rumors to mislead the public, gathering crowds to stir up trouble, or amassing wealth and engaging in sexual misconduct. Third, it cannot threaten national security, especially by colluding with officials, participating in or interfering with politics, or plotting rebellion. Whenever these three lines were crossed, they were mostly resolved through administrative means, including suppression. Precisely because of this, the separation of church and state, and the separation of religion and education, are the historical norms of our country.
Religion emerging as a serious problem began with the spread of Christianity in China following the Opium War. Religious conflicts that had never occurred before began to happen; these were the continuous "missionary cases" [17], culminating in the Boxer Movement and the Eight-Nation Alliance’s bloodbath in Beijing. Chinese religion upon entering modern history immediately carried a strong political connotation and became one of the drivers of the Chinese people's national democratic revolution. The reason the "May Fourth Movement" was led by "Science" and "Democracy," followed by the nationwide "Anti-Christian Movement" and "Anti-Religion Movement," was related to this broad historical background. Therefore, "freedom of religious belief" in the Chinese context emphasizes the strict restriction of religious interference in politics and its entry into the field of national education.
The Communist Party of China inherits the Marxist view of religion and has a newer perspective on the issue of religious belief: First, whether to believe in a religion is a citizen's right and no force is allowed to interfere. Second, theism does not conform to reality; as a political party responsible to the people, the CPC has an obligation to speak the truth and conduct publicity and education on atheism. This legal respect and protection for citizens is unified with the purpose of serving the people and being responsible to the people, particularly embodying the consistency between freedom of religious belief and the publicity and research of atheism.
Third, beginning with Mao Zedong's "Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan," the religious issue has been incorporated into the overall tasks, policies, and lines of the Chinese revolution and construction. There is no ambiguity in striking at various forces engaged in reactionary political activities under the guise of religion, while maintaining an attitude of sincere respect for the beliefs of the masses. This is because Mao believed that through education and self-education in the process of revolution and construction, the masses would resolve these issues themselves; he opposed "doing the work for others" (yuezǔ dàipáo). "To draw the bow without discharging the arrow, but poised and ready to leap" [18]. Theism is a problem of the subjective spiritual world; from the perspective of historical materialism, one must look for the causes and the way out from the social roots that breed it.
Therefore, Marxist atheism must be built on the basis of believing in and relying on the masses, playing its role in actually improving the material and cultural conditions of the masses and raising their scientific spirit and level of understanding. In this regard, atheism is not passive, nor is it limited to opposing various forms of theism; more importantly, it is active. It aims to establish a correct way of thinking and attitude toward life, and to build a way of life different from religious life—using one's own head and hands, adopting scientific and educational methods, to create a way of life that is healthy, beautiful, happy, harmonious, and freely developing, while also being full of human care and embodying the warmth of human sentiment. Thus, scientific atheism inevitably becomes an organic component of the movement of scientific socialism, linking up with the future communist ideal.
Stripping belief of its additives and restoring belief to its state of purity is one of the tasks of scientific atheism, and the means to achieve this is freedom of religious belief. For the state, it must guarantee the citizens' freedom of religious belief; at the same time, it must guide the social nature of religion toward a good direction and do its best to weaken the social consciousness and social roles imposed upon it—that is, protecting its core of belief from external interference, weakening its exclusive ideology and social functions, while enhancing human dignity and the function of individual self-reliance. It must enhance national and civic awareness, and strive to attract and absorb the vast number of believers to participate in productive labor, including the improvement of their own living conditions, to jointly build a beautiful home and country. Only with economic self-sufficiency can there be independence of personality; only with independence of personality can one effectively break free from the shackles of religion.