What to do about Yasukuni?

[lexico]

May I rephrase yours into two sentences since the Japanese gov't and some of its citizens obviously seem to confuse the two ideas ?

1. Forgiveness reserves the right to endorse repentance, but should not, and cannot, be forced upon the vitcim.

2. Forgiveness reserves the right to examine the quality of repentance.

3. Please honor the spirit and letters of the Peace Treaty, represent historical events of aggression that are internationally accepted, and not push for military expansionism; violation thereof shall be considered insincere repentance.

 

[Tonysoong]

Originally Posted by DaMo
How did the remains of the war criminals get interred in the shrine in the first place? That's what I would like to know. Who approved it, and what madness possessed them to do so?

Also, is there any way for the war criminals to be "de-shrined" somehow?

So basically you wish to deprive others of their freedom of religion?

Damo is asking questions that i think Japanese should have asked themselves. But regretfully, many of our Japanese friends like mikecash seem to have their unique way of defining religion. What is the the name of the Japanese religion of which honoring Class A war criminals is an indispensible part? Does killing civilians and raping women have to be part of that religion so that you don't need to repent?

If this whatever-you-may-call-it is your Japanese religion, please allow me to remind you that this religion does never serve maintenance of your soul. And even worse, Koreans and Chinese may need to invent their own religions to counter yours, say for the sake of world peace.

 

[Tonysoong]

May I rephrase yours into two sentences since the Japanese gov't and some of its citizens obviously seem to confuse the two ideas ?

1. Forgiveness reserves the right to endorse repentance, but should not, and cannot, be forced upon the vitcim.

2. Forgiveness reserves the right to examine the quality of repentance.

3. Please honor the spirit and letters of the Peace Treaty, represent historical events of aggression that are internationally accepted, and not push for military expansionism; violation thereof shall be considered insincere repentance.

Thanks, lexico, you make my meaning clearer.

 

[lexico]

No problem, Tony. Your first sentence has the strong, pursuasive ring to it, but I was just concerned that it might be too hard for some to grasp. :sorry:

As for Mike's argument, I'm hesitating to counter because I'm not sure of Mike's intentions. I'm trying to picture this thread as something close to a mock civil court: The Victims vs. Official Performance of Yasukuni rituals
case: Yasukuni rituals violate the victims in a symbolic manner causing pain and agony
advocates: members, members

It appears to me that member 窶督ｼ窶督ｳ窶堋ｵ has taken leave unable to back up his/her defense, and taking pity upon the defendant, member Mikecash filled in to assist due legal process by representing the defensless defendant. I just hope we don't get carried away; nevertheless I shall take my turn presently. Nothing personal, Mike !

 

[Tonysoong]

Mikecash seems a faithful religious defendent.

 

[Mike Cash]

Mikecash seems a faithful religious defendent.

Which is probably odd, considering I am a devout Atheist.

 

[Tonysoong]

Atheist? Hm ---

Which is probably odd, considering I am a devout Atheist.

You are, though you are in blind defense of religious freedom.

 

[Iron Chef]

Since when was defending religious freedom a bad thing...? Maybe i've misconstrued your meaning here, not sure. Clue me in.

 

[Tonysoong]

Mikecash is just a little bit self-contradictory. He assists with the invention of the Jpapanese-specific religion which i termed as "whatever-you-may-call-it" , yet claiming himself to be atheist. Confusing, isn't it?

 

[kirei_na_me]

Maybe he is just more open-minded when it comes to accepting the fact that there are people from all kinds of religious backgrounds. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[qwertyu]

I am learning a great lesson here. You can conflate two completely different issues - the religion of Shintoism and objection to a nasty political act by one particular shrine - and convince people that it is one and the same as long as you claim it repeatedly and the audience is inclined to prefer your message.

How can anyone call this "defending religious freedom"?

I really know very little about Shintoism and desire enlightenment. Does Shintoism itself advocate the invasion and colonisation of another country/people? Does it excuse crimes against humanity committed by its adherents as long as it is perpetrated against another people in the name of one's country? I would guess the opposite, that most religions abhor avarice and violence, but if those are Shintoism's tenets, then indeed, I am against it because this position is plain wrong. However, if it is just the position of Yasukuni Shrine, and not that of Shintoism in general, then I am explicitly ONLY against that aspect of Yasukuni Shrine, and nothing at all against Shintoism, the religion.

Religion has been co-opted by politics throughout history. Just recently, the Vatican publicly apologised for its role in anti-semitism history and the German Catholic Church's tacit support of Nazism. Imperial Japan's kamikaze pilots were assured that they would be worshipped at Yasukuni Shrine for the sacrifice of their lives to further the terrible enterprise of creating a Japanese Empire enslaving all of Asia. Any chance that Yasukuni Shrine would apologize? As much chance as Japan acting like Germany, I suppose.

George Bush claims to be a devout Christian leader representing God's country, so is the invasion of Iraq a Christian act? Are critics of the Iraqi invasion attacking Christianity?

Are the thousands of auto-da-fe [burning at the stake of heretics] conducted by the Church's Inquisition in the Middle Ages representative of Christianity, and is any condemnation of it a deprivation of Christian rights?


I guess with some people, the two are the same. You are for it or against it, and if it is a religious entity, it can commit any act with impunity and any criticism of said act only means you are against religious freedom and "narrow-minded". That makes so much sense.

What a "moral challenge"!

 

[qwertyu]

While researching Shintoism [very little covered out there], I came across this very relevant column. It is well-argued, except I would point out that the Palestinian "terrorists" suicide bombers are fighting haplessly for their homeland from a position of military weakness and defense against an occupying power, whereas kamikazes were fighting a war of offense and aggression with the support of a very powerful military for the domination of other countries and peoples.

http://japanfocus.org/article.asp?id=088

 

[lexico]

Just to make sure...

Mike, before I jump in with an argument, I'd like to pose a simple question. Are you sure Damo's idea is going against 'freedom of religion' ?

How did the remains of the war criminals get interred in the shrine in the first place? That's what I would like to know. Who approved it, and what madness possessed them to do so ?

Also, is there any way for the war criminals to be "de-shrined" somehow?

It appears that DaMo is referring to the indivdual's natural and constitutional right to excercise 'freedom of religion.'

So basically you wish to deprive others of their freedom of religion ?

Your question seems to concern the state's freedom of religion, or am I mistaken ?
Then what happens when these two separate rights are in conflict ?
Which 'freedom of religion' takes precedence in legal power according to the constitution ? The individual's or the state's ?

 

[Mike Cash]

So some people would feel better if I said that forcing Yasukuni to "de-shrine" people would be to interfere with their right to freedom of speech rather than their right to freedom of religion?

I can't understand why Tony thinks it self-contradictory for me to be an Atheist yet at the same time believe in the freedom of religion.

 

[lexico]

Freedom of Religion IN JAPAN

Since when was defending religious freedom a bad thing...?

You're absolutely right.

I can't understand why Tony thinks it self-contradictory for me to be an Atheist yet at the same time believe in the freedom of religion.

Perhaps we can all remember Maciamo's thread, Can you play the devil's advocate? and calm down a little ?

[edit: This was to ask Tony not to pursue Mike's character, as it can be considered an invalid/irrelevant line of argumentation. But since Kireiname misunderstood, I think I must state it explicitly so as to prevent further confusion.]

So some people would feel better if I said that forcing Yasukuni to "de-shrine" people would be to interfere with their right to freedom of speech rather than their right to freedom of religion?

I think what bothered Mike was the impression that certain pressures from the outside to change certain Japanese ideas would be infringing on Japanese soverign rights to religious freedom, and I think we can all understand that.


DaMo's question is legitimate, however, because it deals with an internal matter.

How did the remains of the war criminals get interred in the shrine in the first place? That's what I would like to know. Who approved it ...?

Tony reasserts the question:

Damo is asking questions that i think Japanese should have asked themselves.

In fact there have been talks, requests, rejections, and lawsuits by individuals, both Japanese and foreign, all family or next of kin to the deceased because the government enshrined them in Yasukuni against the family's will.

In other words, there is sufficient cause to complain about the infringements on rights to the individual's freedom of religious belief of not having to accept governmental decisions to enshrine them, and to keep them enshrined, withtout their knowledge/consent and/or against their will.

[edit: In the above paragraph, "rights to individual freedom...against their will" was bolded and capitalized originally. Since Kireiname considers it confrontational, I've normallized the text to unbolded, uncapitalized.]

The material I have seen are scattered, and which appears to be only the tip of the iceberg. Let me find some more data and return to the subject.

One request of self-restraint: I'm also guilty of having made the mistake, but the flag of residence has NOTHING to do with the person. So please let us refrain from making personal remarks referring to the flag, or assumptions stemming from the flag. Thanks.

 

[kirei_na_me]

Perhaps we can all remember Maciamo's thread, Can you play the devil's advocate? and calm down a little ?

I think mike sounded very calm when he stated that?

I tend to think people are not calm when using caps and bold print.

 

[lexico]

Kireiname,

Sorry for not being clear. I was talking to Tony, actually. I also removed the caps and bolds. I hope that helps to reduce the tension. But what are caps and bolds for then ? How do I emphasize a point that I have made, that didn't seem to have gotten across ? :?

I am pointing out that DaMo's idea and Mikecash's idea are different ones and not necessarily in conflict with each other in principle (there is no evidence to that as far as the posts go, unless I have other personal knowledge of the two members which I don't), not becuase they have different views on 'freedom of religion' but because they are actually talking about different things. To discuss would definitely help us, including me, to understand better, but isn't it important that we are aware of such a difference ?

And one more thing, do you really perceive things all in terms of conflict, black and white ? I was not being sarcastic when I affirmed Iron Chef's opinion. But is that how you read me :?

 

[qwertyu]

Which is more important, calmness or REASON?

I guess maybe reason isn't as important as one's own PREFERENCE and very selective point of view.

And yes, caps are meant to emphasise points that are blatantly overlooked, the way they are used as headlines, for example. Last I checked, caps don't make any sounds either.

For all of mikecash's "calmness", though I would argue that accusing someone of bigotry isn't at all civil or calm, I'm afraid I still haven't received any answers to my questions and request for a retraction.

 

[qwertyu]

What puzzles me about the Japanese is this. Forget about asking them to feel empathy for other Asians for a moment. What do they feel when they see the kamikazes, young talented Japanese men with wives and children, used as propaganda props by the very entity that demanded them to needlessly sacrifice their young lives in the name of reprehensible values and ideology? The past 50 yrs showed that Japan, and other Asian nations, are capable of modernity and prosperity without colonising others or embarking on aggressive wars. What would the kamikazes, as dead spirits, say to the Japanese people? They died for a mistake? The powerful old men in government and the Yasukuni shrine sold them and us all a lie at the very worse, or at the very least, committed huge blunders. Perhaps it wasn't apparent 60 yrs ago, but certainly, we all know better today. So why aren't Japanese people condemning the lies propagated by Yasukuni Shrine? Why aren't they appalled? Is it because the truth is more unbearable? Is it because it is better to be wrong than to admit mistakes? Do they think it will demean their country? These are geniune questions to which no one seems to have answered.

 

[Mike Cash]

The answer to your hypothetical question regarding Osama should be readily apparent without specifically being answered. Just take the same principles I applied to the Yasukuni situation and apply them to your hypothetical. Principles which get applied differently on a case-by-case basis aren't worthy of being called principles. I've stated mine here, so the answer should be clear.

As for a retraction, don't hold your breath. I am not in the habit of apologizing for statements I make on the internet. I say what I think, put my name to it, and stand behind it.

Now perhaps you will do me the kindness of telling me how an outside power can forcibly "de-shrine" people whom others have enshrined without infringing upon their right to religious freedom and/or their right to freedom of political speech?

 

[Masa]

China and Korea should shut up.We keep giving much money over many years .

Yasakuni shrine is in Japan it's our culture .If Japanese person want to go he go.

Nothing to do with China or Korea .

Most Japanese don't care what China or Korea think. We only care what America think. Not interested in China or Korea thinking

 

[qwertyu]

Thank you Masa! you answer for your country admirably! banzai!

 

[qwertyu]

No, mikecash. NOTHING you have posted is apparent. You didn't answer any questions to back up your assertion that my criticising the unsavoury politics of a particular religious entity equals religious bigotry. It's rather cowardly to throw an accusation and insult and then run away without answering the request for substantiation.

 

[qwertyu]

Now perhaps you will do me the kindness of telling me how an outside power can forcibly "de-shrine" people whom others have enshrined without infringing upon their right to religious freedom and/or their right to freedom of political speech?

You give the Chinese and Koreans too much credit for what they can MAKE Japan do. How is anyone forcibly "de-shrining" the war criminals in Yasukuni Shrine? With threats of bombs? With sanctions? They are free to do it. Free to lie about history. Free to hold their former victims in contempt. Free to declare Japan never did wrong. But are their former victims then FREE to protest?

But then if you are not a hypocrite, you should also concede that accusing those who TALK about protest of Yasukuni politics and de-shrining of bigotry is ALSO infringing on their political right to free speech.

Discussion of de-shrining ISN'T the same as FORCING THE ACT.

Free speech should be equally available to those you like and those you don't.

The tenets of free speech, however, do not protect lies, libel, baseless accusations.

We are attempting a civil discourse here, but you feel pretty free to accuse others of bigotry without presenting a valid case. This is an abuse of the right to free speech.

 

[Mike Cash]

Uh....did you read the original post? The part asking what can be done to "de-shrine"? That implies it being done by outside coercion, and not by convincing the offending parties to give up their offensive behavior by getting them to come around to your way of thinking.

Have I said somewhere in this thread that no one is free to protest Yasukuni? You'll have a hard time finding a statement from me to back that up.

If you don't think that infringing on the religious freedom of others is bigotry, then console yourself that you're not a bigot. I'll go on considering such behavior bigotry, though. And I will feel free to call bigotry "bigotry".