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in a confused and unsettled state, unable to face the fact that thinking people are no longer going to be cowed by outdated, irrelevant, religious ideology.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.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS