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
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
