Preface

This essay expresses a view opposite to that which I held many years ago. In other words, it is like using my own spear against my own shield. Although today I see that yesterday was mistaken, I cannot deceive myself by remaining silent in the face of past errors. Is this progress in thought or regression? I leave it to the readers to judge, according to the advancement of their own thinking.

Introduction

Over the past ten years, those concerned about the state of affairs often rallied around three banners and tirelessly advocated them: preserve the country, preserve the race, preserve Confucianism. Their intentions were lofty, and their efforts were earnest. I, too, once counted myself a humble follower under these banners.

Even so, from the perspective of today’s knowledge and by observing the currents of world affairs, the goal our generation should strive for henceforth is only the preservation of the state. The preservation of the race or Confucianism is not of the most urgent concern.

Why do I say this? Regarding “preserving the race,” which race exactly is meant? The Yellow Race or the Chinese nation? Their meaning is not entirely clear.

If it is the Yellow Race, then Japan is also of the Yellow Race, and today it enjoys a highly advanced civilization. Does it need our protection? If it is the Chinese nation, with four hundred million people—roughly a third of the world’s population—even if we lived as slaves or beasts, extinction would not occur. If the state survives, the nation will naturally thrive; if the state falls, even multiplying the population tenfold would be meaningless. Therefore, preserving the race falls under the preservation of the state and need not be singled out.

As for preserving Confucianism, there are also several problems. First, what is the true character of Confucius? Second, how exactly should religion be defined? Third, what is the future trajectory of religious development? Fourth, what is the relationship between politics and religion in various countries? I will examine these questions in turn.

1. Religion Cannot Be Preserved by Human Effort

Religion and the state are not the same. The state is composed of people; without people, there is no state. Thus, the state must be protected by human effort. Religion, however, is completely different.

Religion concerns people, not things to be externally protected. What does this mean? By the principle of survival of the fittest, if a religion truly captures the hearts of people, it will inevitably outlast other heterodox beliefs. Like a blade, the more it is sharpened, the keener it becomes; the more it is oppressed, the stronger it grows; restrictions often prolong its survival. Religion contains a certain spiritual force that draws and inspires people unconditionally—requiring no external human protection.

If a religion is weak, like Zoroastrianism in Persia, Brahmanism in India, or even Islam in certain historical contexts, it may flourish temporarily but ultimately cannot endure permanently in the civilized world. There is no doubt about this. This is why human protection of religion is unnecessary.

Some who advocate protecting religion may argue that the protector’s wisdom exceeds that of the religion itself, like a parent protecting a child or a monarch protecting his people (protecting the state is different; the state is unconscious, and its protection is essentially self-preservation). Religious leaders, however, are unparalleled sages and guides for humanity. How can ordinary people, in comparison, claim to “protect” them? Such claims are arrogant, presumptuous, and sacrilegious. This is the reason why the preservation of religion is not necessary, and why its purported rationale is fundamentally unreasonable.

2. Confucianism Is Fundamentally Different from Other Religions

Today, those advocating the preservation of Confucianism are often outraged when Westerners claim China has no religion, seeing it as an insult to Chinese civilization. This stems from ignorance of what religion truly is.

Western religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam, emphasize sincere devotion, salvation of the soul, ritual worship, detachment from worldly life, and often the afterlife as the ultimate goal. Followers are expected to adhere strictly to doctrine, exclude heretical ideas, and suppress dissent. Such religions may advance civilization in early stages but may become restrictive and harmful once society develops.

Confucius, in contrast, focused on worldly affairs: ethics, governance, and the foundations of human society. His teachings lacked superstition, ritual worship, and exclusion of dissent. He was a philosopher, educator, and statesman—not a religious founder. Western scholars rightly compare Confucius to Socrates rather than to Buddha, Jesus, or Muhammad.

Those who seek to protect Confucianism by creating churches, rituals, or creeds are actually misrepresenting him. Confucius never claimed divinity, never demanded exclusive worship, and never required unquestioning obedience. Preserving Confucianism in this way is a misunderstanding, not true preservation.

3. The Decline of Religion Is Natural in the Modern World

Advocates of protecting Confucianism often fear the spread of Christianity. This is an overestimation. Modern society, guided by science, naturally sees religion’s influence decline.

Christianity in Europe has waned compared to centuries past. Secular governments now dominate education and politics. While Christianity will not disappear entirely, it can no longer exert the same power.

In China, Christianity has been present for centuries, yet only a small portion of the elite follow it. Its presence does not threaten national stability. Moreover, attempts to resist foreign influence through the preservation of Confucianism are ineffective. Only a capable, strong state can ensure sovereignty.

4. Religious Freedom Is a Legal Principle

Those advocating state-supported Confucianism often fail to see that this violates modern principles. If such views dominate, the state may establish Confucianism as a national religion, forcing compliance.

Europe experienced centuries of religious wars before enacting religious freedom. Such freedom cultivates civic virtue and promotes social harmony. Religion belongs to the spiritual sphere; politics to the secular. Mutual respect ensures neither interferes with the other. Confucianism does not require state enforcement to survive.

5. Preserving Confucianism Restricts Intellectual Freedom

Intellectual freedom is the root of civilization. Europe’s Renaissance emerged when scholars broke free from church control. China, too, flourished during the Hundred Schools of Thought before the Qin and Han dynasties restricted debate.

Today, advocates of preserving Confucianism often try to align it with Western theories, claiming Confucius already anticipated modern ideas. While their intentions are sincere, such efforts actually insult Confucius and restrict intellectual freedom. Confucius lived two thousand years ago; he could not have anticipated modern developments. Just as we do not disregard Socrates because he did not know about ships or Aristotle because he did not know electricity, so too we can respect Confucius while embracing new knowledge.

6. Preserving Confucianism May Harm Diplomacy

Advocates often attack foreign religions, which can inflame public sentiment and provoke crises. Many diplomatic conflicts, from the Tianjin incidents to the Boxer Rebellion, originated largely from disputes between the populace and foreign missionaries.

The state must weigh benefits and risks carefully. Preserving Confucianism cannot prevent foreign religions from entering China; only a capable, strong state can ensure sovereignty.

7. Confucianism Is Inherently Enduring

Although the intentions of Confucianism advocates are understandable and respectful, their fears are misplaced. Confucianism, concerned with humanity, society, and governance, is inherently enduring. The more civilization progresses, the more relevant its study becomes.

Modern educators emphasize moral education, cultivating individuals’ humanity. Confucius’ teachings are central to this endeavor. The fear that Confucianism will disappear if we do not artificially protect it is groundless.

8. Incorporate the Best of Other Traditions to Enrich Confucianism

Respecting Confucius does not mean establishing a rigid religious institution to monopolize influence. Confucianism is open and flexible, capable of absorbing virtues from Buddhism, Christianity, and Western philosophy.

We should adopt what is beneficial, discard what is not, and integrate superior teachings without fear or restriction. By doing so, the spirit of Confucianism will endure and flourish for generations.

Conclusion

I once considered myself a defender of Confucianism; today, I might appear its adversary. I still love Confucius, but I love truth even more. I cherish my ancestors, yet I love my country more. I respect friends and tradition, yet I value freedom above all.

Confucius valued truth. We should respect him while thinking independently and embracing modern civilization. In this way, the spirit of Confucianism will thrive, unconstrained by fear or outdated practices.

In short: Confucianism does not need forced protection. True respect involves valuing truth, intellectual freedom, and national welfare—not creating rigid rituals or institutions. Its vitality depends on openness, adaptability, and engagement with modern knowledge.