——一部关于治理、整合与神圣性转移的制度史

文 / HuSir

　　在大洋国，信仰从来不被简单视为私人事务。它通常被理解为一种具有社会动员能力、可能影响公共秩序与思想一致性的精神力量，因此需要被纳入整体治理框架之中。与信仰相关的文化传统、仪式实践与组织形态，也被一并视为需要规范和引导的社会现象。

　　在大洋国建国初期形成的根本性法律文本中，明确写有“公民享有信仰自由”的表述。但在同一语境下，相关条款也强调：国家仅保护“正常的信仰活动”，并禁止任何“利用信仰破坏社会秩序、妨碍国家制度”的行为。与此同时，对部分跨国宗教体系的组织联系，也被重新界定为应当服从本国管理体系。

　　由此，问题的重心自始便不在于“是否可以信仰”，而在于——何种信仰形式，被认定为“正常”并受到保护。这一原则，构成了大洋国信仰治理的长期主线。从早期的行政化管理，到特定历史阶段的集中整顿，再到当代更加制度化、技术化的监管方式，都体现出国家在这一领域持续而系统的介入。

一、从精神共同体到行政对象：信仰的制度化起点

　　在建国初期，大洋国并未采取“一刀切”的方式宣布所有宗教活动非法。相反，国家逐步确立了一套更为稳定的治理路径：将信仰活动转化为可识别、可登记、可监管的行政对象。

　　在这一思路下，信仰实践需要具备明确的组织形式、固定的活动场所、经认可的人员身份、可审计的经费来源，以及受监管的对外联系。凡未纳入这一管理体系的活动，即便拥有悠久历史或广泛群众基础，也往往被界定为“非规范形态”，并面临整顿或取缔。

　　这一治理逻辑，后来被系统总结进具有政策纲领意义的文件之中。相关文件明确指出，信仰在相当长时期内仍将存在，但必须接受国家的领导、管理与引导。由此，一个根本性的转变逐渐完成：信仰不再主要被理解为“个人与超越性存在之间的关系”，而是被重新界定为国家需要长期治理的一类社会事务。

　　在这一框架下，佛教、道教、伊斯兰教、天主教和新教等主要宗教传统，被纳入统一的制度体系，并通过相应的行业性组织进行协调与管理。这些组织在结构与人事安排上，与国家治理体系保持高度一致，以确保信仰活动与既定政治方向不发生冲突。

二、集中治理时期：非国家神圣性的系统压缩

　　在大洋国的历史进程中，曾出现过一个信仰治理高度集中的阶段。在这一时期，国家不再满足于对宗教的制度性管理，而是将宗教、传统文化与民间信仰整体纳入一场广泛的思想与文化整肃之中。

　　这一阶段的治理目标，是清除被认为与新社会秩序不相适应的观念体系与象征形式。大量宗教场所停止活动，相关仪式被中断，许多传统习俗被重新定性为落后文化形态而遭到否定。

　　值得注意的是，在对既有宗教与传统进行压缩的同时，政治权威在公共生活中的象征地位却显著上升。某些政治思想被赋予高度权威性，其表达形式在社会动员中发挥了类似精神信念的作用。

　　多年后，大洋国在官方历史总结中对这一时期出现的个人崇拜现象进行了反思，并承认其带来了严重后果。这一经验也引发了一个长期被讨论的问题：当社会原有的超越性信仰被系统性削弱，神圣性是否会在新的领域重新聚集？

三、制度化回归：从运动治理到法规治理

　　集中治理阶段结束后，大洋国并未回到信仰自治的状态。相反，国家选择了一条更为稳定的路径：以法律和行政规制取代运动式治理。信仰活动被重新允许存在，但其合法性前提更加清晰——必须在国家设定的制度框架内展开。这一思路，最终体现在多轮修订的宗教事务相关法规之中。法规对信仰场所的设立、宗教人员的任职、经费管理、出版活动及对外交流等事项，作出了系统规定。

　　在这一体系下，信仰获得了可持续存在的制度空间，但同时也意味着，其活动范围与组织形式始终处于审查与监管之中。任何脱离既定框架的实践，往往会被重新界定其性质。

四、边界机制：当信仰被重新定义

　　在大洋国的制度设计中，始终存在一套明确的边界机制。当某类信仰活动被认定为组织结构高度独立、传播方式不受监管，或对既有法律与权威体系构成挑战时，其性质便可能发生变化。

　　在这种情况下，问题不再被视为单纯的信仰事务，而会被纳入社会治理或法律执行的范畴。相应的制度安排，为国家在特定情形下介入提供了法律依据。这一机制，使各类信仰团体普遍形成一种共识：合法性并非一项不可剥夺的权利，而是一种需要持续符合条件的状态。

五、信息时代的延伸治理：从场所到内容

　　随着信息技术的发展，信仰实践不再局限于实体空间，而广泛存在于网络、文本与数字传播之中。为防止既有监管体系失效，大洋国逐步将治理范围延伸至信仰相关的信息本身。

　　相关管理办法明确要求，涉及信仰内容的网络传播活动，应当符合许可与方向性规范。由此，信仰活动被进一步细分：线下实践需具备场所与人员许可，线上传播则需符合信息管理要求。精神生活，由此被完整纳入技术化治理结构之中。

六、神圣性的归属：一种无需被证明的信念

　　在大洋国，宗教活动需要规范，传统文化需要引导，历史叙事需要不断调整。但有一种信念，却始终不需要被证明其合理性。那便是——对核心权威的忠诚。这种忠诚不需要登记，也无需审批。它通过教育体系、公共仪式与日常宣传被反复强化，并逐渐具备超越一般政治态度的精神属性。

　　由此，一个长期存在的结构性现象逐渐显现：当社会难以形成独立于国家的超越性信仰时，国家本身，往往会成为神圣性集中的主要载体。

结语：关于信仰与秩序的张力

　　大洋国从不否认信仰的存在。相关法律文本也始终保留着对信仰自由的表述。但在实际治理中，信仰活动被持续纳入一套高度制度化的管理体系之中。这种安排在维护秩序与一致性的同时，也引发了长期讨论：当一切信仰都需要被界定、被引导、被监管，社会是否仍能保留足够的精神多样性？
　　当神圣性高度集中于单一权威结构之中，这种结构将如何影响个人的内在自由？这些问题，或许并不仅属于大洋国。它们所反映的，是现代治理体系与精神自由之间始终存在的张力。

How Oceania Governs Belief

A Systemic History of Governance, Integration, and the Transfer of Sacred Authority

By HuSir

In Oceania, belief has never been regarded as a purely private matter.
It is generally understood as a form of spiritual force with social mobilizing capacity—one that may influence public order and ideological coherence—and therefore as something that must be incorporated into the overall framework of state governance. Cultural traditions, ritual practices, and organizational forms associated with belief are likewise treated as social phenomena requiring regulation and guidance.

In the foundational legal texts formed during the early years of statehood, it is explicitly stated that citizens enjoy freedom of belief. Yet within the same legal context, these provisions also emphasize that the state protects only “normal religious activities” and prohibits any use of belief to disrupt social order or undermine state institutions. At the same time, the organizational ties of certain transnational religious systems were redefined as being subject to domestic regulatory authority.

As a result, from the very beginning, the central issue was not whether belief was permitted, but rather which forms of belief would be recognized as “normal” and therefore protected.
This principle has constituted the long-term axis of belief governance in Oceania. From early administrative incorporation, through periods of concentrated restructuring, to today’s increasingly institutionalized and technologically mediated regulation, the state has maintained continuous and systematic involvement in this domain.

I. From Spiritual Community to Administrative Object:

The Institutional Starting Point of Belief Governance

In the early years of nation-building, Oceania did not adopt a blanket policy declaring all religious activity illegal. Instead, it gradually established a more stable governance path: transforming belief practices into identifiable, registrable, and governable administrative objects.

Under this framework, belief practices were required to possess clearly defined organizational structures, fixed venues for activities, officially recognized personnel, auditable financial sources, and externally supervised channels of contact. Activities that fell outside this system—regardless of their historical depth or social reach—were often categorized as “non-standard forms” and subjected to rectification or prohibition.

This governance logic was later systematized in policy documents of programmatic significance. These documents made clear that belief would continue to exist for a long period of time, but only under the leadership, management, and guidance of the state.

Through this process, a fundamental transformation was completed: belief was no longer primarily understood as a relationship between individuals and transcendent realities, but was redefined as a category of social affairs requiring long-term state governance.

Within this framework, major religious traditions—such as Buddhism, Daoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestant Christianity—were incorporated into a unified institutional system and coordinated through corresponding sectoral organizations. These organizations were structured and staffed in close alignment with the state governance apparatus, ensuring that religious activity did not diverge from established political orientations.

II. A Period of Concentrated Governance:

The Systematic Compression of Non-State Sacred Authority

At one stage in Oceania’s historical development, belief governance entered a highly concentrated phase. During this period, the state went beyond institutional regulation of religion and instead subsumed religion, traditional culture, and folk belief into a broad campaign of ideological and cultural restructuring.

The stated objective of this phase was to eliminate systems of thought and symbolic forms deemed incompatible with the emerging social order. Large numbers of religious venues ceased operation, ritual practices were interrupted, and many traditional customs were reclassified as outdated cultural forms and subsequently negated.

Notably, while existing religious and traditional forms were being compressed, political authority simultaneously assumed an increasingly prominent symbolic position in public life. Certain political doctrines were endowed with heightened authority, and their modes of expression came to function in ways analogous to spiritual belief within mass mobilization.

Years later, official historical assessments reflected on the phenomenon of personality-centered veneration that emerged during this period and acknowledged the serious consequences it produced. This historical experience has continued to raise a persistent question: when a society’s preexisting transcendent beliefs are systematically weakened, does sacred authority reassemble elsewhere?

III. Institutional Reorientation:

From Campaign-Based Governance to Rule-Based Regulation

Following the end of the concentrated governance phase, Oceania did not return to a state of religious autonomy. Instead, it chose a more stable path: replacing campaign-style governance with legal and administrative regulation.

Belief practices were again permitted to exist, but under clearer conditions—namely, that they operate within frameworks defined by the state. This approach was ultimately reflected in multiple revisions of regulations governing religious affairs. These regulations provided systematic provisions concerning the establishment of religious venues, appointment of religious personnel, financial management, publication activities, and external exchanges.

Within this system, belief was granted a degree of institutional continuity. At the same time, however, it remained subject to ongoing review and supervision. Practices that deviated from established frameworks were often reclassified in terms of their nature and status.

IV. Boundary Mechanisms:

When Belief Is Redefined

In Oceania’s governance architecture, a clear boundary mechanism has always existed. When certain belief practices are judged to possess highly independent organizational structures, uncontrolled channels of dissemination, or the capacity to challenge existing legal and authority systems, their classification may shift.

Under such circumstances, these issues are no longer treated solely as matters of belief, but are instead incorporated into the domains of social governance or legal enforcement. Corresponding institutional arrangements provide the legal basis for state intervention under specific conditions.

This mechanism has led belief communities to a shared understanding: legitimacy is not an inalienable right, but a status contingent upon ongoing compliance with regulatory conditions.

V. Extended Governance in the Information Age:

From Physical Spaces to Content

With the development of information technology, belief practices have expanded beyond physical venues into networks, texts, and digital communication. To prevent existing regulatory systems from becoming ineffective, Oceania gradually extended governance to belief-related information itself.

Relevant regulations stipulate that online dissemination of belief-related content must conform to licensing requirements and directional norms. As a result, belief practices have been further differentiated: offline activities require venue and personnel authorization, while online expression must meet information management standards.

Spiritual life has thus been fully incorporated into a technologically mediated governance structure.

VI. The Location of the Sacred:

A Belief That Requires No Proof

In Oceania, religious activities require regulation, traditional culture requires guidance, and historical narratives are subject to continual adjustment. Yet one form of belief consistently requires no demonstration of legitimacy: loyalty to the core authority.

This loyalty does not require registration or approval. It is reinforced through education systems, public rituals, and everyday messaging, gradually acquiring a character that transcends ordinary political attitudes.

As a result, a long-standing structural phenomenon becomes apparent: when society finds it difficult to sustain transcendent belief independent of the state, the state itself often becomes the primary locus of sacred authority.

Conclusion:

On the Tension Between Belief and Order

Oceania has never denied the existence of belief. Legal texts continue to retain formulations affirming freedom of belief. Yet in practical governance, belief activities are consistently incorporated into a highly institutionalized regulatory system.

While this arrangement may promote order and coherence, it has also generated ongoing debate. When all belief must be defined, guided, and supervised, can a society still preserve sufficient spiritual diversity? When sacred authority becomes concentrated within a single structure of power, how does this shape individual interior freedom?

These questions may not belong to Oceania alone. They reflect a persistent tension between modern systems of governance and the human search for spiritual autonomy.