Okay, so that brings me back to my original question of what definition of freedom of religion are we using. Yes, I definately understand that some religion is allowed in China; I also understand that not only can reports be accurate or inaccurate, but even more disturbing, the press might decide that this story isn't interesting enough or something and report, perhaps perfectly factually, on other things. So, like with the Dorje Shugden ban, I was having a hard time finding National Public Radio weblinks to anything about it, so I emailed them, and they seemed sort of confused about whether there had been protests, or what they were about. This was a few years after the protests, and I just wanted to see their spin; their was no spin as far as I could tell because there was no information anyway--- and they are pretty good for what they do report, trying to allow for both sides to talk if there is a controversy.
The main problem is that somehow, although people in the west seem to think there are always problems in their own governments, and that people in their own churches might not be on the up and up, for some reason, when it comes to the Dalai Lama they get confused into thinking 'there are no problems over there except that big giant China took over their peace loving country'. They seem to think that these guys lived in utopia until the Chinese showed up. Okay, so I don't agree with countries taking each other over, but if you look at the history of Tibet it is often quite bloody (for example the 5th Dalai Lama) and there have always been problems. Then they seem to think that if someone says 'compassion' that then that must be how they always act; of course the pastor at their church--- they can detect hypocracy there--- but somehow they think that the Dalai Lama would never do this, even if it is not their religion. I guess people farther from home are easier to believe in?
