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in a confused and unsettled state, unable to face the fact that thinking people are no longer going to be cowed by outdated, irrelevant, religious ideology.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.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS