Whenever I hear or read the words “traditional family values” I cringe. I was raised in a traditional family, one which, on the surface at least, appeared to correspond with the powerful religious ideologies of the time: husband as dominant male patriarch; wife being dutiful, hard-working and subservient, and two polite, well-behaved children. However, like many such families, the reality was different. The traditional family life of my childhood was often dysfunctional and oppressive; involving emotional abuse, physical abuse and its constant threat, and a great deal of fear. What was missing was happiness.
As I grew older, matured, became a husband and father myself, I realized that the concept of “traditional family values” invariably concealed some pretty nasty realities for many others also. How many of you reading this are carrying emotional pain and baggage from your upbringing in a “traditional family?” Most, I suspect. The current debate in Taiwan concerning the legalization of various forms of “non-traditional” civil partnerships, including same-sex marriage, powerfully illustrates the gap in modern society between those who desire freedom to love and to have that love recognized by legal union, and those who are fearful of anything and anyone which does not adhere to their notion of “normality.”
For me, the former — the progressives — are the force which will enhance the prospects for love and happiness in our world, while the latter — the traditionalists — are living in a confused and unsettled state, unable to face the fact that thinking people are no longer going to be cowed by outdated, irrelevant, religious ideology.
This is not just a theological argument — the issue is quite simply should we mindlessly promote “traditional values” as a “good thing” or do we recognize that love can and does come in many forms? It always has. Is it not time that we recognized this and ditched traditional values in favor of human values? Being traditional does not automatically make values good — often just the opposite.
All religions should have one aim: to encourage love, peace, belonging, togetherness and understanding between people and between societies. Organizations and their representatives that fail to do that, or encourage the opposite, are not religions, they are oppressive and limited political ideologies of which we should be very wary.
Religions and religious leaders do not hold society together; people do that through their love for each other, their desire for peace not war and their willingness to accommodate difference. Unfortunately, love for one’s neighbor too easily breaks down when we consider our neighbor to be inferior to us; when we think our ideology is the only right one and when we apply negative judgements of others based on their gender, sexuality, race or culture.
I fully appreciate and to some extent sympathize with the situation now being faced by religious groups and their leaders everywhere. The world is quickly changing. However, I say to such religious leaders: You are now faced with a stark choice: Be part of the present and therefore the future. Embrace difference. Alternatively, face becoming increasingly irrelevant to the spiritual needs of those who have, thus far, allowed religion to thrive.
Stephen Whitehead is a visiting professor of gender studies at Shih Hsin University.
It is almost three years since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a friendship with “no limits” — weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Since then, they have retreated from such rhetorical enthusiasm. The “no limits” language was quickly dumped, probably at Beijing’s behest. When Putin visited China in May last year, he said that he and his counterpart were “as close as brothers.” Xi more coolly called the Russian president “a good friend and a good neighbor.” China has conspicuously not reciprocated Putin’s description of it as an ally. Yet the partnership
The ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu (孫子) said “know yourself and know your enemy and you will win a hundred battles.” Applied in our times, Taiwanese should know themselves and know the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) so that Taiwan will win a hundred battles and hopefully, deter the CCP. Taiwanese receive information daily about the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) threat from the Ministry of National Defense and news sources. One area that needs better understanding is which forces would the People’s Republic of China (PRC) use to impose martial law and what would be the consequences for living under PRC
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) said that he expects this year to be a year of “peace.” However, this is ironic given the actions of some KMT legislators and politicians. To push forward several amendments, they went against the principles of legislation such as substantive deliberation, and even tried to remove obstacles with violence during the third readings of the bills. Chu says that the KMT represents the public interest, accusing President William Lai (賴清德) and the Democratic Progressive Party of fighting against the opposition. After pushing through the amendments, the KMT caucus demanded that Legislative Speaker
Beijing’s approval of a controversial mega-dam in the lower reaches of the Yarlung Tsangpo River — which flows from Tibet — has ignited widespread debate over its strategic and environmental implications. The project exacerbates the complexities of India-China relations, and underscores Beijing’s push for hydropower dominance and potential weaponization of water against India. India and China are caught in a protracted territorial dispute along the Line of Actual Control. The approval of a dam on a transboundary river adds another layer to an already strained bilateral relationship, making dialogue and trust-building even more challenging, especially given that the two Asian
RSS