Introduction
For religious minorities living under conditions of persecution, the dilemma of how to practice their faith in the face of hostility is perennial. The core of the problem is the double bind between openness and secrecy: being open about one’s beliefs risks provoking repression, while secrecy or deception risks moral compromise, communal fragmentation, and a loss of identity. This paper explores this double bind in depth, demonstrating its persistent presence across different historical and cultural contexts. Through an examination of case studies — the Marranos of Spain, the Kakure Kirishitan of Japan, Christians and Yazidis in the modern Middle East, and Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan — it shows how minorities have struggled with this tension. It concludes by discussing strategies for mitigating the bind, both internally through theological and communal resilience, and externally through legal and societal protections.
The Hazards of Openness
Religious openness in the face of hostility often results in violent, sometimes existential consequences for minority communities. Public worship, distinctive clothing or grooming, and refusal to participate in dominant religious rites can mark believers as targets of state-sanctioned or mob-led persecution.
One of the clearest historical examples is that of Spanish Jews in the late fifteenth century. After centuries of discrimination, the 1492 Alhambra Decree expelled Jews from Spain unless they converted to Christianity. Many converted publicly but continued to practice Judaism privately. Those who continued to worship openly and resisted conversion risked imprisonment, torture, and execution at the hands of the Inquisition. Public Jewish worship ceased almost entirely as the community weighed the price of openness against the instinct for survival.
Similarly, the Kakure Kirishitan (“hidden Christians”) of Japan, after Christianity was banned in 1614, were forced underground. Those who continued to worship openly were crucified, drowned, or burned alive. The shogunate actively sought out Christian communities, offering rewards to informants and deploying sophisticated tests (like trampling on Christian images, the fumi-e) to detect believers. Those who refused to disavow their faith were killed. The Japanese case highlights the extreme consequences of visibility: even minor outward expressions of Christianity became a death sentence.
In contemporary contexts, the pattern continues. In Pakistan, for example, Ahmadiyya Muslims — declared non-Muslims by constitutional amendment — face blasphemy charges and mob violence for openly identifying as Muslim. Churches in Egypt and Iraq are routinely bombed or attacked by Islamist extremists when Christians gather publicly to worship.
Thus, openness carries not only physical risk but also deep psychological and social costs: ostracism, loss of livelihood, and trauma for individuals and families. Moreover, openness can inadvertently endanger the broader community, drawing unwelcome attention from authorities and vigilantes alike.
The Hazards of Secrecy and Deception
For many minorities, secrecy or deception appears to offer an alternative. Yet this strategy, too, brings hazards of its own.
The Marranos, or crypto-Jews of Spain and Portugal, provide a sobering example. Though many converted outwardly to Christianity, they maintained secret Jewish observance at home. Over time, this led to intense psychological strain, with children and even spouses sometimes betraying one another under pressure. Generations of secrecy also led to the erosion of Jewish knowledge and practice; by the time some descendants of Marranos resurfaced centuries later, much of their tradition had been lost or distorted.
The Japanese hidden Christians experienced similar outcomes. After more than two centuries underground, their faith developed in isolation from global Christianity, incorporating Buddhist and Shinto elements and losing much of its theological depth. When Japan reopened in the nineteenth century, these communities were unrecognizable to Catholic missionaries, who were stunned by the syncretism and the thinness of doctrine.
Secrecy often imposes moral and spiritual costs as well. Many religious traditions uphold truthfulness as a core value, making deception — however justifiable under duress — a source of guilt or theological controversy. Moreover, secrecy feeds external suspicion. In Spain, the Inquisition justified its campaigns by portraying crypto-Jews and crypto-Muslims as deceitful and disloyal citizens, perpetuating anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim stereotypes. Today, similar dynamics appear when Muslim minorities in Europe or North America are accused of practicing taqiyya as a form of subversion, even when this is not the case.
Secrecy also fragments communities. The need to hide one’s true identity inhibits trust within the group, weakens transmission of faith to the next generation, and fosters internal divisions between those who take greater or lesser risks.
Strategies for Navigating the Double Bind
Given that neither openness nor secrecy is without danger, how can minorities navigate this double bind? Strategies can be classified into two broad categories: internal resilience and external advocacy.
Internal Resilience
Religious minorities can draw on their own traditions to frame secrecy and openness as morally and spiritually intelligible responses to persecution. Islamic jurisprudence, for instance, developed the doctrine of taqiyya, permitting believers to conceal their faith when under threat of death or severe harm. Rabbinic Judaism has long debated when martyrdom (kiddush Hashem) is required and when survival takes precedence. Early Christian writings offer similar guidance: while martyrs were revered, Christians were also counseled to flee persecution when possible and to worship secretly if necessary.
Communities can also invest in preserving identity under the radar. This includes developing coded language and symbols, maintaining clandestine networks, and cultivating strong internal solidarity to offset the isolating effects of secrecy. Oral transmission of doctrine, secret schooling, and covert communal support have all been effective in maintaining continuity under oppressive regimes.
External Advocacy and Legal Protections
While internal resilience helps sustain the minority, external efforts are needed to address the structural conditions that create the bind in the first place. Legal protections for religious freedom, even if imperfectly enforced, reduce the costs of openness and make secrecy less necessary. International human rights law, advocacy by NGOs, and diplomatic pressure can all help create a safer environment. Social movements that challenge prejudice and normalize minority identities can also shift public opinion, making openness less dangerous over time.
The case of Yazidis in Iraq illustrates both the potential and the limits of external support. After ISIS targeted Yazidis for genocide, the global response, though tardy, included aid, resettlement programs, and documentation of atrocities. These efforts did not eliminate the danger but offered some Yazidis a chance to live openly in safer environments. Similarly, the rehabilitation of the Marranos’ descendants in modern Spain and Portugal reflects how changed legal and cultural contexts can enable formerly hidden minorities to reclaim their identity.
Conclusion
The double bind of openness and secrecy remains one of the most intractable problems faced by religious minorities under persecution. Open witness can invite repression, while secrecy can corrode identity, community, and moral integrity. Historical and contemporary case studies show how no choice is without cost, yet they also offer lessons in resilience and adaptation.
Ultimately, resolving this dilemma entirely is impossible in the absence of broader societal and legal change. But within the constraints of hostile environments, religious minorities can adopt creative strategies of endurance, drawing on their own traditions for moral clarity and maintaining internal cohesion through discreet but determined practice. Meanwhile, states and societies have a duty to reduce the need for such choices by protecting religious freedom, combating prejudice, and ensuring that no one is forced to choose between faith and survival.
The double bind is not merely a challenge for persecuted minorities alone; it is also a moral indictment of the societies that force such impossible choices upon them. Addressing it, therefore, requires not only courage and wisdom within the minority but also solidarity and justice beyond it.
Edge Induced Cohesion 
Denying taqiyya is a method of subversion destroys your credibility on that topic.
Blog policy blocks a true discussion of the Armstrongist form of that Muslim practice.
Hiding and lying about one’s faith for protection is one thing (albeit forbidden in NT). Concealing and misleading about one’s faith and outreach constitutes fraud. A full discussion of that in the context of Armstrongism would, as stated above, be blocked on this blog.
LikeLike
To expound upon the first point above: I did two tours in KFOR in Kosovo, 2007-2009. Arguably sort of the height of GWOT. In that position, I saw many reports, classified and unclassified, regarding taqiyya. I know enough from the unclassified material to know that it is indeed a vital tool in Islamic terrorism. Furthermore, the PC environment of Europe even today makes any claim that Muslims seriously feel put upon laughable.
Now, for some entertaining insight into the matter, here’s an oldie from our friends at Latma: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hnI66WiQOQI&pp=ygUPTGF0bWEgY2hyaXN0bWFz
LikeLike
Btw, I should add that my job is in military intelligence. I did see reports.
LikeLike
I don’t think he is denying its existence; from what he writes, these people are being accused of it “even when it’s not the case.” They are adjudicated guilty until proven innocent. One more thing about the inquisition; the Spanish in particular were after the Sabbath-keeping Christians. They were the ones who were tortured and killed. The Jews lost their property and were expelled from the country, but their lives were spared.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLiked by 1 person
Okay. I’m willing to acknowledge a mistake or overreach. Problem is, even when it “isn’t the case,” it actually is. It’s still part of the overall Jihad. Extremists fly a plane into a building, demanding everybody become Muslim. Then the moderates come along and say they don’t want that, just special rights and PC protections which will facilitate further terrorism and further advancements. And in the interest of “peace,” we in the West yield to them instead of… Well, Japan hasn’t given as much of a problem like that since we dealt with them.
In any case, comparing the Muslim practice to protective actions of other religious minorities —ones that may actually be vulnerable to persecution — is, shall we say, quite the stretch.
As for the Inquisition, a lot of religious minorities were persecuted and tortured. ”True Church” histories will emphasize Sabbatarians, but they were, in fact, actually a small minority of those persecuted. It’s amazing what a little cherry-picking can do. The truth is, those “historians” actually stretch a lot of things. Yet they fail to establish the key succession of the “True Church” claim: https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2025/03/reference-to-followers-of-armstrongism.html?m=1
LikeLike
I would venture to say that the Muslim experience is a good deal more complicated than you speak, especially when viewed in the larger perspective. The practice of taqiyya first developed, it would appear from the historical accounts that survive, among small Shi’ite communities that felt the need to conceal themselves and their loyalty to Ali and his adherents, in the midst of the oppressive rule of the early Muslim caliphs. For the record, I agree with you that contemporary Muslim populations in the West have no just claim to need concealment as the open practice of peaceful religious beliefs and practices would not need any sort of disguise or deception since the only grounds where Muslims would suffer large-scale persecution is their active desire to bring down the state matched by criminal and terroristic actions. I do not consider any small scale sort of verbal or rhetorical abuse to justify such deception or concealment.
To connect the subtext of the Sabbatarian experience to the text of looking at larger communities, the small size of Sabbatarian communities is not a big deal at all. Nor is it any surprise that people would wish to emphasize the experiences of those who they judge as being part of the same community even if they were only a small size of those who ran afoul of coercive and tyrannical efforts at persecution. However poorly you may think of the practice it is standard operating procedure for historians to select (or, as you say, “cherry pick”) in such a fashion. In the larger sense, the fact that Sabbatarians were even a small part of those caught up in the dragnet of official civil and religious persecution justifies looking at the practice as a historian because it provides historical context to contemporary fears and anxieties. To the extent that contemporary Sabbatarians have a reasonable fear of suffering persecution for their religious beliefs, without having committed any violence towards the nations where they live, concealment may be judged as an appropriate response. Likewise, those who view Sabbatarians as subversive elements have no cause to complain when those Sabbatarians block them from communication on account of such massive and unmerited hostility.
LikeLike
You are putting way too much together. I am in no way comparing Sabbatarians to Muslim terrorists. That point was a point unto itself.
————
As far historical method, my BA is in History. Cherrypicking is not an appropriate method supporting a hypothesis. Quite the opposite. If you are examining who were the victims of the Inquisition, you don’t simply pick out specific cases where YOUR community was targeted, and then assert that your community was the primary target. The works of people like Hoeh and Igor Fletcher which you were most familiar with would never pass muster among actual historians. Even Craig White, while trying to champion Hoeh, is forced to acknowledge he makes great leaps with no evidence or information: https://www.friendsofsabbath.org/CW%20Articles,%20Notes,%20Charts/Church%20of%20God%20history/SDBs%20Relationship%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20God.pdf. White includes in an appendix where the Bible Sabbath Association caught Hoeh misciting sources in a deceptive way in his 1990 GN “True Church” history article. (Hoeh claimed it was a few accidents.) I remember reading the article when it came out. The identity of the sources figured into the thesis, and I thought it really made the case. Turns out, it was a fail. And for the record, I can attest from my own research into the Taiping Chinese Sabbatarians for a term paper (for which I received an A) that Hoeh was quite given to, shall we say, agendized and sanitized presentations. His work simply cannot be trusted.
As for Sabbatarians hiding: Dude, we had a Seventh-day Adventist run for president in 2016. I heard a few (rhetorical) shots taken at him for it, but most of those had to do with his belief that the Egyptian pyramids were grain storage bins built by Joseph. (Hoeh, of course, actually supported this view, attributing them to Job serving as a contractor — see Compendiums.) I served with a SDA overseas (and yes, he bore arms). One of my two prime managers at work is a Sabbatarian (no idea what denomination). The store even upset the schedule of the other manager in order to accommodate her “going back to church.” With all due respect, you are simply looking to justify what you have claimed elsewhere is no longer the case — Armstrongists hiding their light under a bushel.
The truth is, people really don’t care if you want to go to church on Saturday. People don’t care much if you avoid pork. And while I sympathize when any kid is teased, kids just aren’t gonna tease other kids because they have to have matzos in their lunch box for a week.
But even if those things did cause problems, that is the nature of things. Being treated differently is simply a natural part of being part of a minority. You have to be willing to take that. At this time, there is no real threat to you and your faith tradition. It’s one thing not to advertise every distinctive of your personal faith. However, if you’re going to preach your gospel, then you need to be open and honest about what it is. How can the hearer count the cost when the cost is hidden from them?
Now, imagine the other side: Imagine how nonmembers attending Ambassador College felt when they were prohibited from using recreational facilities on the sabbath (or so, I’ve been told), when they themselves rested on Sunday. Perhaps they wanted to study for their math class, and in some cases felt they had to conceal the book they were reading in the library. Perhaps the mail from their church was censored by the college because somebody thought “Church of God (Holiness)” was a WCG breakaway. And having to hear their religion labeled “pagan,” and their “Jesus” being a false one made up by Simon Magus, when they were genuinely reading the same Bible as you, but simply understanding it and him differently. Was that persecution?
Imagine how R/WCG members who knew Pentecost was on Sunday prior to 1974 felt when they had to risk their jobs by going to church on MONDAY, and keep their mouths shut. Members talk about the three-day weekends some areas would have — a mini-Feast. While the other families were playing on Sunday, those who knew better and could read literally any educated writeup on the topic had to do a little taqiyya of their own as to why they weren’t out playing. And they had to teach their kids to lie to the coreligionists about it. And all that so as not to upset “God’s TRUE Work.”
When I criticize Armstrongist outreach as concealing its nature, it’s not about the things like Leviticus 23 observance. Indeed, the weekly sabbath at least has actually been a notable part of outreach. That’s one that is fairly open. It’s more about things like eschewance of Civic Duty, double/triple tithing, “True Church”/Sabbatarian exclusivism and attendant elements, and veneration of the one you label as the “founder” of your church tradition. These matters should be clearly stated in your beliefs statements. I recognize some are, but some are not. And when your prime literature in such actually points in the opposite direction on a few of those (I genuinely gathered from US&BC that military things were totally acceptable), it is simply a bait and switch.
In summation (I can hear you cheering): The history you have been taught is distorted. I demonstrated that with the succession matter. There is a difference between not inviting difficulties or persecution, and actually hiding rather impactful beliefs and practices of it in your organized outreach.
LikeLike
With regard to my comment about Sabbatarian Christianity, the torture and martyrdom suffered during the Spanish Inquisition, please note that I was confining it to the “Spanish” Inquisition. The inquisition spread throughout Europe and all groups viewed as subversive were persecuted, but Isabella was particularly concerned with the seventh-day observing Christians who had been branded as heretics by official councils dating back to the fourth century. She confiscated Jewish property and exiled them, but her torture and murder extended to the judaizing Christians that Catholic tradition outlawed. She had the pope’s blessing on this.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLike
Though I have no high degree of confidence in your abilities to correctly and justly read and interpret texts, I have no interest in disputing that. What I do wish, before proceeding further along this line of inquiry is to confirm that I accurately understand where you are coming from. From your comments to this post (and others), am I correct in characterizing your view that there are some people in the Church of God community (perhaps many) whom you judge to be equivalent to subversive terrorist Muslim elements within the West and that you judge me as being a “moderate” whose writings provide cover to those whom you view as terrorists and traitors?
LikeLike
How does the misuse of taqiyya in such a fashion lead you to suspect the motives of the broader community?
LikeLike
Islam as the religion calls for the subjugation of humanity. But as with (mainstream) Christianity, typical adherents for the most part actually don’t care to fulfill The actual commands of their faith. They may “believe” it, but they really don’t understand or appreciate it. They aren’t lying when they say they are your friends. But even as “peaceful protesters” actually serve as human shields for the not-so-peaceful ones, the same can be said for the “innocent” Muslims. Sometimes politically, sometimes kinetically. The Bible is full of cases even beyond the conquest of the Holy Land where categorical targeting was legitimate. Sometimes you just can’t be selective.
It really isn’t hate toward Muslims. I work with a couple of Muslims. I served overseas and bunked with a Black Republican Muslim! At the same time, though, they really are one religious experience from turning on us. Are you familiar with the term, “Green-on-Blue”?
Watch this from David Wood of Acts 17 Apologetics. Watch through to the end for a genuine elaboration on the “innocent” Muslims here in the West: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9G2BMryP07I&t=14s&pp=2AEOkAIB
And, to keep that one in perspective, a little related fun from Star Trek: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BpyC0IaT7oY&pp=ygUPU3RhciB0cmVrIElzbGFt
LikeLike
This points to the greater need to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent rather than a lesser importance for such an approach.
LikeLike
Nah. All you’re trying to do is hamstring a war effort.
LikeLike
Sounds like a personal problem from someone who can’t get their roe straight.
LikeLike
I will forgo returning fire on that last shot to say that I get your sense of common cause with a “religious minority.” I was in your place. I also was a paralegal, and used that training in the early days of UCG at the request of a minister to assist in a small way in determining a non-California location for the home office. So I know all about precedents in one case affecting another. Believe me, I totally get it.
What you need to get is that your real common cause on this lies with your countrymen, your fellow Anglo-Israelites. Upholding our common enemies will not endear you to them. Instead of looking at the Muslims with affinity, maybe consider the Sikhs instead. Just a thought.
LikeLike
The Sikhs are a fantastic option and I should write a lot more about them in this regard as they are a much better fit to the situation.
LikeLike
And as I often explain to people uneducated, on the matter, Sikhs hate Muslims as much as we do.
Again, I get the affinity with minorities. But there is a line between opposing persecution and enabling an enemy. When we had that discussion of your “covenantal” governance, I mentioned I would have in my system as much religious freedom as reasonable for all faiths — except Islam.
LikeLike
My interest in talking about Islam was not about the contemporary behavior of Muslims in the west but a cross cultural comparison between the origins and development of concealment in religious traditions. Dealing with Islam in the contemporary world is a very different matter. The Sikhs are far less confusing example in terms of historical interest and contemporary relevance.
LikeLike
You picked a very bad example to use to help justify Armstrongist practice. And we both know that’s what you’re trying to do. Kind of like citing PCG to support your Heritage Day, honestly.
Believe me, I understand. I didn’t want to brag about my faith. I didn’t want people knowing that I was a CO. I didn’t want family knowing that the real reason I was living so cheaply was that my religion was sucking up a disproportionate amount of my income. They didn’t care what day I went to church. They could even handle the Christmas issue. They were just disappointed I dropped my Air Force plans, and some of them knew how much money I was blowing on that… religious movement. Btw, my first year at a state college, my roommate didn’t even know I went to church. And my fellow congregants said I did a good job keeping it from him. So I totally get it. That doesn’t change the fact that it constitutes, in the Armstrongist theological context, denying the faith.
Of course, it would be a lot easier if you dropped the false doctrine of eschewing Civic Duty and instead heeded the universal command of Genesis 9:5-6 and its derivatives. You’d be amazed how much it would change. Ask CGI members. (And ICG, perhaps. If I go back in time and change only which between GT and HW to be associated with… Hey! I’d be able to say my guy got on Hee Haw!) Just sayin’. https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2025/06/reference-counter-to-traditional.html?m=1
LikeLike
I do believe that deception can be used in a subversive way. That said, I do not always believe it is used in such a fashion and I seek to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent as it were.
LikeLike
https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2025/07/recurring-antisemitism-in-modern-west.html?m=1
“Recurring antisemitism in modern West (and how to deal with it) explained.”
Upshot: Jewish populations simply need to stop being liberals for every non-mainstream minority.
LikeLike
That’s an awfully broad brush but leftist Jews are certainly a plague. Fortunately not all of them are like that though.
LikeLike
During President Trump’s first term, I had a discussion on Twitter (before I started getting banned there) with a Jewish scholar type who had been re-tweeted by Trump. So this guy was a bit of a conservative. He even said in one tweet that White antisemites were not a serious threat, because they were fewer number and not organized. But elsewhere, he signed on to some standard line to impress White Guilt on people like you and me. I pointed out to him what he had said elsewhere, but he didn’t care. He openly basked in how his people were able to play both ends to their advantage. I even tried a weird Anglo-Israelist line by noting that Joseph forgave Judah, and so Judah could return the favor. No dice.
It’s not just the liberals among them.
Mark Kaplan in 1995 pointed me in passing to something that might indicate what I’m talking about. In discussing Anglo-Israelist arguments for mandatory sabbath observance — he mentioned some would argue Jeremiah 3 against that line of thinking. I knew what he was talking about. That is where God divorces Israel, but not Judah. What I came to find is that some Anglo-Israelism believers use that passage to argue against general Law observance by the northern tribes, because they were cut off for now. I have seen this sense among White antisemite believers AND Jewish believers. The former do not want to look like the Jews, and the latter want to retain their Jewish distinctiveness. (Opposite extremes often look more like each other than they do the center.) In a roundabout way, it’s the same approach by the latter as being discussed here — maintaining their own people’s identity at the expense of being part of the greater community.
Anecdotal, but notable. The phenomenon is happening. How influential it is might on the topic at hand varies with the telling.
LikeLike
I do see in general a tendency among Jews to pass as white when they wish to assimilate but to view themselves as separate when it comes to being critical. I assume that accounts for their frequency among writers of anti white books in the American political discourse and other tendencies.
Speaking of the two house phenomenon you talk about there are lots of Messianic Jews who hold to a lesser standard being held to non-Jews than to ethnocultural Jews as you mention, and there is a general desire for people to not want to appear Jewish.
LikeLike