RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE IN JAPAN.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 4926, 6 January 1877, Page 3

RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE IN JAPAN.

(From the CMya Shimbun, Sept. 23, 1876.) We cannot clearly understand what are the' s deas entertained by our Government on the subject of the sanctioning or the reverse of the Christianreligion* nor can we avoid feeling some mistrust in regard thereto. If we glance backward a little, we see that four or five years ago our Government removed all the notices that were in every part of the country in respect to the “evihsect called Christians,” &c., and though this step. on their part was no doubt owing in a considerable degree to the influence of the pressure exercised upon them from abroad to effect- that end, still it .cannot be denied that it was also owing to the careful attention which the Government’ had given to the [changed spirit of the times, and to thenhaving perceived, in consequence, that the policy which Tokugawa had instituted several hundred years before in respect to foreign doctrines, was entirely raissuited to the present day. They accordingly ceased to look upon that doctrine as being a wrong and corrupt one, and the Japanese who placed their faith in it as criminals of the deepest dye, as Tokugawa had done. Consider now what has been the state of matters since the removal of the edicts above-mentioned. Missionaries have been despatched by the Missionary Societies of all’ the countries of Europe and America (to Japan), who in the large churches which they have erected not only in Yedo, but in all the open parts, fearlessly worship what they call the “ true God,” and setting up the cross, gather their disciples together, and instruct them in their doctrines. Our countrymen, again, publicly listen to them, and listening admire them, and admiring believe them, and in the end come to mock the Buddhist, Shintooist, and like religions, as a useless worship of idols, and to despise their doctrines as false. The Government puts no cheek on, and makes no inquiry into, this, and their not doing so must be taken as a sign that their real intention is to quietly authorise the foreign doctrine. There is, however, one point which, when we consider it, makes no doubt wether this or the direct reverse is the intention of our Government.

We recently heard that a certain samurai in the Miye tot publicly preached the Christian religion within that ken, and that the officials thereof hearing of it immediately sent to interrogate him, asking him “by the authority of what office or what person he did so.” The samurai answered that “he had received no special authority, but that he understood that the Government permitted such preaching.” The ken officials accordingly, reported the matter to the proper quarter, and asked for instructions as to whether the preaching should be permitted or not, and strict instructions speedily came saying that it should not be permitted. We have also heard that instructions to the same effect were issued in regard to a similar case that occurred in the KOchi ken. We cannot say whether the information is true, but we are inclined to believe, in view of the absence of any discrepancy in the reports given of it, that it is. If that be so, the intention of our Government resembles that of Tokugawa in not permitting but even repressing the foreign doctrine, and we cannot but feel some distrust on the matter. It may, however, be said that it is not the desire of our Government to authorise the foreign doctrine, but that, .while they have no choice but to permit its being for a while preached by the foreign missionaries in Yedo, Yokohama, and the other open ports, it is very far from their intention that it should be disseminated by Japanese in the interior of the country, and that not only, therefore, will they not overiookanything of this kind, but tliey will strictly forbidit. What can this mean ? That a difference will be made in authorising or prohibiting the preaching of the'foreign doctrine according, to the place where, or the person by whom it • is preached ; and that amounts to saying that its preaching .by a foreigner at, an open port should be authorised as being, unproductive of any damage to the interests of the country, but that it should be forbidden on the part of a native in the. interior as being the reverse. Would this not be a strange admission ? It is clear that no such narrdw-mmded views are held by those; who, in the administration of the Goverhfeent, treat all impartially, and we would, therefore, guarantee to any extent that this view of the question which we are now considering is' not correct. What then is the feeling with which .our Government regards the foreign doctrine? Our humble abilities do not enable us to form any conjecture, and we cannot free ourselves from distrust on the subject. Should, ‘ however, anyone/ ask us whether the foreign doctrine should be allowed, or forbidden, we should say that it isibetter ' that 'if should be permitted than forbidden, and better that it should be publicly authorised than merely permitted. And why? Liberality throughout the world recognises the justice of freedom of opinion—the opposite of liberality is selfishness, arid,auy interference therefore with freedom of opinion is selfishness.