International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 3, 2012 1
Cults, Religion, and China: Policy Frameworks for the Regulation of
Religious and Quasireligious Groups
Stephen Mutch
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Preamble
I am pleased to have been invited to attend what
is now the Fifth International Symposium of
Cultic Studies, this year cohosted by the
Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences (SASS)
and the Assumption University of Thailand
(ABAC). I extend thanks to the conference
hosts Yan Kejia, the Director of Religious
Studies of SASS, and Warayuth Sriwarakuel,
Dean of the Graduate School of Philosophy and
Religion at ABAC.
The invitation has encouraged me to think more
about how policy prescriptions in the field of
cultic studies might be shared among countries
with very different social, cultural, and political
backgrounds. I am encouraged in this by the
“can do” attitude of Richard Rose, who avers
that “the only condition limiting where to look
for lessons is the existence of a common
problem” and that “‘go where you can learn
something useful’ is a rule that underscores the
instrumental character of lesson-drawing.”1 The
theme of this symposium, “Globalisation and
Destructive Cult Groups,” underlines the fact
that countries do share a common problem in
dealing with cultic groups, and they indeed share
problems with many of the same groups that are
organized globally.
Abstract
Situated in the field of comparative public
policy, this paper explores the relevance of
various models involving the regulation of cultic
groups and religion to the People’s Republic of
China, a country governed by the atheistic
Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but which has
constitutional protections for religious belief, as
well as disbelief. It examines different
conceptual frameworks relating to the
regulation of the relationship between cultic
1 Richard Rose, Learning from Comparative Public Policy: A
Practical Guide (London: Routledge, 2005), pp. 41–42.
groups, religion and the state and explores
policy applications under various philosophical
approaches. In conclusion, for various
contextual, philosophical and practical reasons,
it is noted that the French secular model might
provide the best policy fit for China.
Introduction
In March 2008, “the Communist Party changed
its own charter to make room for the concept of
religion in the pursuit of social harmony”
(Ching, 2008, p. 36). In a plenary address to the
opening session of the National Committee of
the Chinese People’s Political Consultative
Conference, Jia Qingling, fourth ranking leader,
instructed that the Chinese Communist Party
(CCP) “should fully follow the policy on
freedom of religious belief, implement the
regulations on religious affairs, and conduct
thorough research on important and difficult
issues related to religion.”2 This commendable
attitude toward research has encouraged Chinese
officials and academics to examine what
scholars from abroad have to contribute to their
understanding of the relationship between cultic
religious groups and the state.
Knowledge of the legal, political, and cultural
history of a nation is a necessary precondition to
the successful application of public policy
programs borrowed from abroad. Even within
nation states (most obviously those of a federal
nature where valuable horizontal comparisons
are readily made), there is a need to be aware of
the particular characteristics of local context.
Therefore, any regulatory ideas emanating from
the West and embraced by the ruling CCP must
be tailored to suit conditions in China, perhaps
even to suit localised conditions in parts of
China.
2 Frank Ching, China: The Truth About Its Human Rights Record
(London: Rider, 2008), p. 36.
Cults, Religion, and China: Policy Frameworks for the Regulation of
Religious and Quasireligious Groups
Stephen Mutch
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Preamble
I am pleased to have been invited to attend what
is now the Fifth International Symposium of
Cultic Studies, this year cohosted by the
Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences (SASS)
and the Assumption University of Thailand
(ABAC). I extend thanks to the conference
hosts Yan Kejia, the Director of Religious
Studies of SASS, and Warayuth Sriwarakuel,
Dean of the Graduate School of Philosophy and
Religion at ABAC.
The invitation has encouraged me to think more
about how policy prescriptions in the field of
cultic studies might be shared among countries
with very different social, cultural, and political
backgrounds. I am encouraged in this by the
“can do” attitude of Richard Rose, who avers
that “the only condition limiting where to look
for lessons is the existence of a common
problem” and that “‘go where you can learn
something useful’ is a rule that underscores the
instrumental character of lesson-drawing.”1 The
theme of this symposium, “Globalisation and
Destructive Cult Groups,” underlines the fact
that countries do share a common problem in
dealing with cultic groups, and they indeed share
problems with many of the same groups that are
organized globally.
Abstract
Situated in the field of comparative public
policy, this paper explores the relevance of
various models involving the regulation of cultic
groups and religion to the People’s Republic of
China, a country governed by the atheistic
Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but which has
constitutional protections for religious belief, as
well as disbelief. It examines different
conceptual frameworks relating to the
regulation of the relationship between cultic
1 Richard Rose, Learning from Comparative Public Policy: A
Practical Guide (London: Routledge, 2005), pp. 41–42.
groups, religion and the state and explores
policy applications under various philosophical
approaches. In conclusion, for various
contextual, philosophical and practical reasons,
it is noted that the French secular model might
provide the best policy fit for China.
Introduction
In March 2008, “the Communist Party changed
its own charter to make room for the concept of
religion in the pursuit of social harmony”
(Ching, 2008, p. 36). In a plenary address to the
opening session of the National Committee of
the Chinese People’s Political Consultative
Conference, Jia Qingling, fourth ranking leader,
instructed that the Chinese Communist Party
(CCP) “should fully follow the policy on
freedom of religious belief, implement the
regulations on religious affairs, and conduct
thorough research on important and difficult
issues related to religion.”2 This commendable
attitude toward research has encouraged Chinese
officials and academics to examine what
scholars from abroad have to contribute to their
understanding of the relationship between cultic
religious groups and the state.
Knowledge of the legal, political, and cultural
history of a nation is a necessary precondition to
the successful application of public policy
programs borrowed from abroad. Even within
nation states (most obviously those of a federal
nature where valuable horizontal comparisons
are readily made), there is a need to be aware of
the particular characteristics of local context.
Therefore, any regulatory ideas emanating from
the West and embraced by the ruling CCP must
be tailored to suit conditions in China, perhaps
even to suit localised conditions in parts of
China.
2 Frank Ching, China: The Truth About Its Human Rights Record
(London: Rider, 2008), p. 36.
