Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 162
may be valid, but what interests me however, is what the author does not say. I could not
find in the pre-publication draft which I downloaded any actual discussion of the brutal
extreme persecution of Falun Gong and other groups in China or any awareness of the
relationship of this persecution to the authoritarian (many would still say totalitarian) nature
of the Chinese party state and its ruthless determination to maintain the domination of the
Communist party over the society and to destroy any group or movement whose claims on
the loyalty and fervor of participants may overshadow or rival that of the Marxist party. The
whole context of Chinese authoritarian state control and rejection of ideological pluralism is
swept under the rug, and by implication seems to be viewed by Rosedale as more or less
benign or at least basically irrelevant to the necessary control policies of the Chinese state
toward Falun Gong, which are dictated by the pathological nature of the cult.
Presumably Mr. Rosedale‘s original quasi-governmental audience would not have
appreciated any reference to the absence of democracy, ideological pluralism, true religious
freedom or autonomous ―civil society‖ in Maoist China.2 In omitting any acknowledgement
of the obvious Mr. Rosedale was conceivably just being polite. However, the effect is
somewhat as if a ―cult apologist‖ such as myself were to address a Branch Davidian
audience on the Waco tragedy without making any acknowledgement that David Koresh and
his associates bore some responsibility (along with the FBI and the BATF) for the casualties.
Can the problem of Falun Gong in China really be discussed intelligently without reference to
the context of quasi-totalitarian party control over Chinese society and the general
suppression of dissidents? Rosedale‘s complaints about the media and human rights
advocates‘ one-sided emphasis on the persecution and victimization of Falun Gong and their
neglect of the dangers that the wild and sinister movement poses to Chinese society clearly
give the impression—at least in the absence of any disclaimers (which did not appear in the
draft I read)—that the author more or less endorses the Chinese state‘s program of furious
repression.
I will address the issue of the ―dangerousness‖ of Falun Gong later in this paper. But first I
will briefly discuss the actual measures which Chinese officials have taken to deal with Falun
Gong. A reader of the Rosedale essay could get the impression that Chinese officials are
reasonably trying to cope with a wildly destructive movement. However, Falun Gong is
hardly the only religious group which Chinese authorities persecute, indeed, the brutal
suppression of political dissidents in China is well-known.
Stringent Persecution
To some extent the persecution of Falun Gong by the Communist regime is continuous with
the persecution of deviant groups in traditional (Imperial) China. Rosedale notes the
heritage of wild, theocratic and apocalyptic sects in Chinese history. He does not note the
fierce persecution of such groups, nor does he recognize the roots of politicized, dissident
sects in the traditional, Imperial Chinese view that religion and governance are inseparable.
The notion of a ―separation of church and state‖ is alien to Chinese tradition. In this context
a new spiritual revelation necessarily implies a new political regime. The disruptive
potential for messianic insurgency is therefore maximized and became a continuous theme
in Chinese history. Theocratic dissident sects reflect the interdependence of religion and
politics in traditional China, which still persists. There is likewise little ―separation of church
and state‖ in contemporary China, e.g., the Communist regime recently directly appointed
the new Tibetan Buddhist ―Panchen Lama‖ (supposedly the 17th incarnation of the original
Lama). The alternative Panchen Lama appointed by the Dalai Lama and supported by most
of the monks was shunted aside by the atheist regime, which presumes its ability to discern
who really is the true incarnation of the original Panchen Lama. (It is as if President Bush
were to appoint the next Mormon ―prophet.‖) In any case despite the ―striking analogies‖
Mr. Rosedale discerns between destructive cultism in China and the West, the distinctive

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 163
totalitarian religiopolitical context of Chinese treatment of religious minorities shouldn‘t be
ignored.
Whatever their ultimate origin, dissident sects in Imperial China were brutally persecuted.
Professor Scott Lowe writes:
In the coached, formulaic ―confessions‖ of NRM [new religious movement]
leaders preserved in official documents we can discern the motives that
government inquisitors projected upon these groups. Under torture, leaders
usually ―confessed‖ to being frauds who had tricked their followers into
seditious behavior in order to gain power and wealth. Many also confessed to
outrageous acts of sexual license and flagrantly immoral behavior. It is
significant that the charges brought against the leaders of Chinese NRMs
hundreds of years ago are virtually indistinguishable from the accusations
made today against modern ―cult‖ leaders in the mass media, East and West.
And of course, these same formulaic charges of financial and sexual
exploitation are currently being brought by the government of the PRC
[Peoples Republic of China] against the leaders of a wide range of NRMS.3
Much of what is now going on in China manifests continuity with pre-Maoist patterns.
Chinese Buddhist monasticism may never have fully recovered from the ―Great Persecution‖
under the Tang dynasty in the ninth century. In Dr. Lowe‘s view, ―The suffocating
regulation of monastic Buddhism since the founding of the PRC [Peoples Republic of China]
in 1999 might plausibly be viewed as a simple continuation of earlier patterns of social
control, though it must be acknowledged that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has
proven far more efficient and severe than any of its predecessors.‖4
Despite his Marxist veneer, Chairman Mao ―was very much a product of his culture.‖
Like his imperial predecessors, he believed in the almost magical power of
society-wide conformity and felt personally threatened by all ideological
dissent. Since religions are competing ideologies, providing alternative
centers of power and allegiance, they ultimately had to be eliminated. As an
exponent of a totalistic political system, Mao was incapable of allowing
religion to exist in a separate (non-secular) realm independent of politics ...
.[when religions failed to die out in a socialist context, as anticipated] ...all
public believers in any religion were subjected to re-education those who
continued to profess their faith faced imprisonment, torture and even death.
As the recent histories of Falun Gong, Zhong Gong, the Protestant Christian
―shouters‖ and other less well-known groups have shown, 21st century NRM
members still face re-education, imprisonment, torture and death.5
The Constitution of the PRC guarantees to citizens ―the freedom of religious belief.‖
―However, the Constitution rather pointedly does not recognize the right to engage in
religious practices or propagate religious teachings. Since the founding of the Peoples
Republic in 1949 several laws have been employed to restrict severely the outward
expression of a wide range of religious practices in Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, Christian,
sectarian, and popular traditions.‖6
In the last two decades the PRC has more or less ceased to pursue Mao‘s goal of
suppressing all persisting religious activity. ―However, one can easily overestimate the
degree to which the police state is in decline the forces of control are still strong and have
recently demonstrated their power and the length of their reach.‖7 The commotion over
Falun Gong may even have somewhat reinvigorated the repressive control apparatus.
Registered religious groups approved by the Religious Affairs Bureau are allowed to operate
freely ―so long as they follow strict government regulation and engage in approved