Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 July 22

= July 22 =

How do modern-day people in East Asia approach Protestant and Catholic Christianity?
Do they approach it in the same way that modern-day Westerners approach Buddhism? -- 03:04, 22 July 2017 Uncle dan is home


 * Your question is almost meaningless in that form. Different Asian individuals from different cultures at different historical periods have reacted to different forms of Christianity encountered in different ways.... AnonMoos (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- you retroactively added additional words to your question, which only helps with the non-specificity problems to a limited degree, and which could be seen as a rather rude maneuver in terms of on-line conversational etiquette... AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * OP, I and probably anyone who reads this cannot read minds. You should define "approach". 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Many people in the West that turn towards Buddhism have negative attitudes about Christianity. Another reason is that Buddhism seems exotic. They also tend to be more socially liberal. Do people in East Asia turn towards Christianity because it seems exotic to them and because of negative attitudes towards their traditional religions? Also, are Asian Christians more socially liberal in the Asian sense than followers of the traditional religions?

In other words, do Christian converts in East Asia feel the same negative attitudes towards the traditional religions that Buddhist converts in the west feel towards Christianity? -- 06:18, 22 July 2017 Uncle dan is home


 * Thank you for beginning to clarify your questions. Christianity in Asia is a big area, even when it is whittled down to East Asia. You might want to start with Christianity in China, Christianity in Vietnam, Christianity in South Korea, etc. Oddities abound: my experience of non-Christian Chinese people, worldly enough to be travelling in Europe, is that many have understood Catholicism and Protestantism to be completely different religions, as conceptually separate as Islam and Buddhism. Some were even surprised to hear that both C and P count as Christians. The early missionaries had a lot to answer for!
 * It is also useful to consider the role of the Communist Party in China and Vietnam; arguably the Party serves as a form of state religion, and so in turning towards Christianity, some individuals may be expressing (covert) dissatisfaction with the Party, rather than with e.g. Buddhism. The Party is officially atheist, and bans its officials, even retired ones, from joining (other) religions. Another point to bear in mind is that not all Christians in East Asia are converts; some grew up in Christian households, and any negative attitudes towards traditional religions would not be because of having to participate. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * whether or not something is a state religion is subjective. some could say the belief in the "American way of life" was a religion, or, more broadly, the set of beliefs and values (sometimes clashing - what Dawkins recently learned the hard way) that characterize one as "progressive." Some have actually described SJWs as the "new church ladies." Asmrulz (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * calling something religion is a silly meme the purpose of which is to dismiss something as not rational enough. doesn't mean it is, doesn't mean the things that are not called thus aren't, and doesn't add one bit to the understanding. Asmrulz (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * there are, of course, actual civic religions such as that in Revolutinary France or the USSR. Asmrulz (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Some further clarification:In places that have historically been Buddhist, Buddhism has been approached as a faith-based religion, unlike how Westerners approach Buddhism. Do converts to Christianity from Buddhism (I added some additional text) in those areas view Christianity as a religion based on reason instead of faith,the same way that many Westerners view Buddhism?Uncle dan is home (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I knew a mainland-Chinese student who had a pathological fear of Catholicism because when she arrived to study in the US she was unwelcomely approached by some insistent young men in white shirts and ties in the airport terminal. She pointedly avoided me after I tried to explain that they were not actually Catholics (and even mentioned that I was an atheist). Makes you wonder what, exactly, the ChiComs are teaching these days.μηδείς (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You refer to them with a racist epithet and you wonder why they avoid you? Covfefe beans (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure there's much point in responding to a non-sequitur by a user whose name means troll in SJW, but what WTF are you talking about with "racist epithet"? I never called this young woman any names at all, nor did I refer to her homeland to her at all in this context.  And how is Chinese "racist"?  Mentioning the one-party Communist rule of her homeland (which she detested) is "racist"?  Bollocks. μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In this instance, the fault surely lies with the insistent young men rather than the "ChiComs". As for the confusion with Catholicism, it is a deliberate part of the Mormon's proselytising strategy towards Chinese speakers to use terms that in Chinese are identified with Catholicism, to lend themselves legitimacy. I know anecdotally of Chinese people who are not well versed with Christian theology who only found out after they'd joined up that they had not joined a mainstream Christian sect. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting, so the Mormons deliberately try to be identified with Catholicism?  Is there any link you can provide?  I would find it interesting reading. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Deliberately" may be putting it too highly, I am not privy to their strategic thinking, but the words they choose certainly seem to obfuscate their identity and/or exploit the unfamiliarity of Chinese people with their sect. For example, they wear badges that say, in Chinese, "Jesus Christ Church", rather than "Mormon" or "LDS", which to a Chinese speaker - even one who knows about the Mormons - would not indicate that they are anything other than a mainstream Christian denomination. The same term is used by the Catholic Church in Chinese to mean all Christian churches. From my experience of encountering Mormon missionaries who speak Chinese, they tend to try to draw the accostee in by referring to Chinese words that are familiar through encounters with mainstream Christianity - like Jesus, or God, or the gospel. The strategy seems to exploit any curiosity or latent interest of the accostee in Christinaity in general. I don't know at what point they start introducing Mormon, or the other concepts that a layperson might find strange - by then they may have already successfully drawn the person in. I have found a couple of Chinese sites that try to explain this strategy, but they also do not seem to be backed by serious research and are probably quite partisan, so I'm not sure how useful they are. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The only thing I know about Mormonism really is that one of their followers followed a missionary from the United States to Scotland, kidnapped him and made him her sex slave.  Are they the people who say the scriptures are on plates which were dug out of the ground?   Do these proselytisers have literature with them?   Jehovah's Witnesses in public places have literature which identifies them, and they are also forbidden to make the first approach.   I know the word covfefe was coined by Donald Trump, but what is "SJW" short for?  2A00:23C0:7F02:C01:311A:34E5:2E94:A54E (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "SJW" = social justice warrior. I often try to parse it as part of a request for a roommate, but it doesn't really work that way.... - Nunh-huh 22:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Mortgage in non-European settings?
The mortgage article specifically mentions the definition in "Anglo-American" property law. It also has sections detailing mortgages in European and European-influenced places. Okay, fine. Does this mean that in non-European settings, people have to buy land with the money they have instead of borrowing money from the bank? But then, I remember watching a documentary about some poor rural Guatemalans (Mayan? Aztec?) living under about one US dollar a day and how they can borrow money to start businesses or pursue a career within their little villages. In that case, is there a difference between that and a mortgage? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * A mortgage, properly so called, has nothing whatever to do with loans: it is a transfer of certain rights in some property. The article you referred to redirects to mortgage loan, i.e. a loan which is secured with a mortgage. As you point out, in Britain and the US (and other places) the vast proportion of money lent to buy property is secured with a mortgage on that property (and the loan is often referred to as a mortgage); but other securities are possible, as is loaning money without security. --ColinFine (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 50.4.236.254 -- In a broad classification, the two most prominent legal systems in the world are the "common Law" system of England and England-influenced former colonies, and the "code law"/"civil law"/"Roman/Napoleonic law" system of continental Europe and its former colonies. (Though there are famous hybrid jurisdictions, such as Scotland and Louisiana.)  The two Wikipedia articles are Common law and Civil law (legal system).  It's somewhat inevitable that most articles about legal concepts will deal with Common law and Civil law first... AnonMoos (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As for how to start a business when you are dirt poor, one option is microcredit. However, somebody that poor probably won't be lent enough money to open a restaurant, but perhaps enough for a food cart, which they can then use to earn enough money for a food stand, then eventually open a restaurant. StuRat (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, in many places (inside and outside Europe) people's don't use mortgages. They buy their home by saving up or (very importantly) by borrowing money from friends & family. There are a few reasons for this. (1) Many people have no bank account nor any realistic way to open one. If the nearest bank is three days' walk away, you're not going to get a mortgage. Mobile banking has changed this dramatically in the last decade: tens of millions of Africans have de facto bank accounts by using SMS, and rural Chinese can use Alipay and WeChat as a substitute bank as well. But mobile banking isn't a good match for mortgages, which are about that least mobile of assets, land (2) Many countries' financial and legal systems aren't sophisticated enough to handle mortgages, or have (post-Communist) restrictions on land ownership. For example, no one in mainland China can buy land outright, though you can now acquire 'land use rights' for 70 years. It's only in the last decade that mortgages have become available to most urban Chinese people, and even then local governments often issue restrictions (e.g. minimum deposits of 20% or even 50%) in order to influence house prices. In addition, the hukou (internal passport) system limits who can buy and borrow in different parts of the country. (3) In some places, there are ideological/religious restrictions on mortgages. Communists aren't supposed to buy land; Muslims shouldn't pay interest, which has lead to the growth of Islamic 'mortgages'. (4) Some cultures prefer renting to owning. Even though Germany is a developed country, most people prefer to rent. The idea that 'grown adults must own their own property' is an Anglo-American one, not a universal one. And I suppose that's the key idea to grasp in all of this. Matt's talk 13:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Having lived in a German-speaking country for the last ten years, I can confirm that most people prefer to rent rather than buy. What I would like to know is why anyone would have that preference. I'm not asking for a cultural explanation, I'm simply asking why anyone would prefer to spend money month after month on a property that they will never be able to call their own. This preference persists even among people who have no intention of moving house, so the stock reply – that renting is more convenient if one is moving around a lot – does not apply. --Viennese Waltz 14:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * There's a "don't put all your eggs in one basket" thought, that if you invest too much in one house, and then the neighborhood goes to hell, you could lose a lot, while a renter loses much less. But the more common reason is that they just never save up enough for a down-payment on a house.  This could be short-sighted thinking, or there could be more important things, like the kid's education, that demand more immediate attention.  Also, in the US at least, when they say you "own" a home, you really don't.  Even if you've paid off all your mortgages, then you just rent your house from the government, with your property taxes being the rent.  If you can't pay, the government takes your house.  Also, even if you do pay all your taxes on time, a Supreme Court decision here allows the government to take it, anyway, by eminent domain, if they think they can sell it to somebody else and make a profit. StuRat (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Germans aren't good at saving?! "Between 2005 and 2011, the household saving rate was, on average, 11.8% for France, 10.9% for Germany and -1.1% for the UK." (Source: Source: Office for National Statistics, UK). The US rate is generally around 5-6% and Australia's is around 8-9% but falling fast (the full data is easily available on the OECD website but I can't post a non-free image here). That directly contradicts the idea that German-speakers are short-sighted.
 * I will bypass 's suggestion that property taxes invalidate ownership, as the idea that 'private property ownership equals sovereignty' is a very minority view, and distinctively Anglophone.
 * I have never read a satisfactory answer to 's question, but I'd like to offer a feeble attempt. Do modern urban dwellers drink milk from cows they own, eat bread from fields they own, wear clothes they've made on their spinning wheel, store their wealth in their own gold jewellery or wash themselves using water from their own rainfall tank? No, generally speaking, they buy these goods and services from other, specialized providers (obviously many exceptions exist). So the default should be for modern urban dwellers to also buy in the accommodation they use. Why would anyone assume that a property that makes a good residence also makes a good investment? The question assumes that the Anglo-American approach is normal and the Germanic one needs explanation. I'd suggest reversing that. I think the Anglophone approach needs an explanation and it probably lies in the historical contingencies discussed in our articles on the Castle doctrine and the Petition of Right. Alas, Owner-occupancy lacks a history section. Matt's talk 12:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There's quite a detailed answer here [//qz.com/167887/germany-has-one-of-the-worlds-lowest-homeownership-rates/]. Whether it actually is a good answer I'll make no comment. I'll note it suggests there are actually quite a few countries outside the Anglophone world with high home ownership rates. France is an interesting example since it's relatively low but [//www.independent.co.uk/property/house-and-home/why-the-germans-and-french-prefer-to-rent-2291077.html] suggests Nicolas Sarkozy wanted to change this. The French aren't generally the sort of people to just want to follow the Anglophones. Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * One final comment I will make is that VW's idea seems to imply the money you spend renting is wasted. Matt's talk seems to have partly addressed this but to put it more directly, unless you are actually paying the same or more for renting as you would for a mortgage the answer is far from so simple. In practice, if as is often the case, the cost of renting is lower than that of servicing a mortgage then you have extra money which if you're disciplined enough could be put into other investments. (Many people are not so disciplined and prefer the pressure of a mortgage to force "savings".) I've seen economists and financial advisors argue that in some circumstances, you may very well end up better off long term with this option. To be fair, such things are always very complicated and risky either way as with many economic situations. For example, if you'd done it in Auckland in 2003 you'd likely be majorly regretting the decision given the housing bubble and massive rise in house prices in many areas since then. But then again as things stand now, even if you can get into the housing market now it's a lot less clear that it'll pay off the same way. Remembering of course you can invest in the housing or property market in other smaller ways. And diversifying your portfolio i.e. hedging your bets when investing is often considered a good idea. (It isn't uncommon that economists suggest the amount of their equity or investments people have that is tied up in their houses is a bad idea.) Also even aside from the risk of trying up a chunk of your investment in the housing market, there's also the risk of of somehow losing at least part of that investment in some fashion in ways beyond the changes in the market. E.g. some event not fully covered by insurance. (Of course each form of investment has unique risks.)  In other words, one answer to VW's question is this. If you have the option when you are 65 of having a $2 million dollar house and $500k in liquid investments. Or no house but $3 million liquid investments which you could use $2.5 million of to buy an better in some way house if you really wanted to, and still have $500k in liquid investments. Which would you prefer? In pure financial terms the later would seem preferable. Let alone if you increase it to $3.5 million etc.  (Of course such analysis are simplified to make the point. Any decent economist or financial advisor will that you're ultimately considering risks and highly theoretical probabilities. Per my earlier Auckland example. That means you have to be able to live with having made the "wrong" decision. And also not panicking if seem to be going "wrong". Again another thing often noted is at least in NZ, but I think in a lot of places people tend to think of their houses as different from normal investments even if pure logic suggests they shouldn't. So for example if someone buys a house today in Auckland and prices are stagnant for the next 15 years and then rise with the net result they end up with a 3% PA return while the other investments would have given an annual return of 6% from the beginning and yes simplifying here assuming these returns are based on investing the same amount after considering mortgages or rents etc, even many? people who actually considered both options probably often aren't going to regret their decision to buy the house. However if someone invests in a balanced portfolio rather than buying a house and ends up with an average annual return of 5% and there's another housing bubble and average annual returns are 8%, well the person is probably going to majorly regret their decision. Likewise if the stock market has problems and goes down, someone may panic and pull out their investments, but few are going to be selling their houses just because average houses prices are going down, although one thing is that stock prices tend to fluctuate more wildly than house prices.)  There are some specific advantages of home ownership including that generally won't be kicked out if you can afford to pay your mortgage, that's one area where the prevalence of long terms rentals as common in Germany can make a difference to what people in some other countries may experience.  Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That Quartz link is very informative, thank you . It's so rare to see an argument supported by facts so that you can draw your own conclusions. And your supplementary piece also raises some important points. Perhaps the risk-aversion observed in German banks also affects German consumers' willingness to gamble on the housing market (some microeconomist has probably studied this). Matt's talk 20:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)