Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 171
argument that it ―blasphemes‖ against religions suggest that the government
is judging the beliefs themselves [my emphasis] rather than their undesirable
manifestations. Similarly the government assumes that the apocalyptic
beliefs of the movement and its rejection of modern medicine make it clear
that it is a ―cult‖ rather than a religion.46
Evans notes that in China members of Falun Gong and other highly stigmatized sects are
held in custody for ―re-education,‖ a procedure which Evans maintains is analogous to
coercive deprogramming. Evans further suggests that ―detention for re-education, as well
as the process of re-education itself, amounts to coercion,‖ which is barred by international
law.47
So, I restate my earlier point that whatever ―analogies‖ Mr. Rosedale perceives between
Falun Gong and destructive American groups, in evaluating Chinese policy, one cannot
ignore the overall context of authoritarian state control. China is no longer trying (as Mao
attempted) to totally eradicate religions. However, ―The government is [still] committed to
transforming China into an atheist state and believes that the decline of religion is
inevitable.‖ Until this happens that government will allow a limited number of ‗official‘
religions. But from a religious freedom standpoint, ―Official religions are only permissible so
long as there is still freedom for people to belong to other, non-official religions.‖48 Such
freedom only exists in China to the degree that repressive rules are not uniformly enforced
in practice. The government meddles in internal religious matters (e.g., appointing the new
Panchen Lama) to ensure that religious practice and training is subordinate to ―patriotic‖
imperatives.
This is not freedom of religion. The transgressions and excesses of Falun Gong in China,
which may have been exaggerated, cannot justify the brutal persecution which Chinese
authorities have applied to the dissidents.49 Some of the control measures such as
involuntary hospitalization have also been employed against political dissidents. The
―psychopathology‖ rationale for such tactics cannot simply be accepted at face value. Nor
can the claims of authorities to not be persecuting beliefs in their attacks on a ―heretical
cult‖ be accepted. The overwhelming context of an intolerant, authoritarian regime cannot
be overlooked. Brutal persecution evokes and extrapolates the very excesses and
apocalyptic frenzies which may be complained of, thus fueling and rationalizing more
persecution.50
Notes
1 Herbert Rosedale, ―Perspectives on Cults as Affected by the September 11 Tragedy,‖ paper
presented in Beijing at the Meeting of the China Anti-Cult Association, December 2001.
2 According to Professor Scott Lowe, China does not have an independent anti-cult movement, i.e.,
Chinese anti-cult organizations are ultimately government controlled. Scott Lowe, ―Religion on a
Leash: NRMs and the Limits of Chinese Freedom,‖ forthcoming in Phillip Lucas and Thomas Robbins,
eds. New Religious Movements and State Control Around the Globe (New Religious Movements in the
Twenty-First Century), Routledge Books, 2003/2004.
3 Lowe. ―Religion on a Leash.‖
4 Lowe. ―Religion on a Leash.‖
5 Lowe. ―Religion on a Leash.‖
6 Lowe. ―Religion on a Leash.‖
7 Lowe. ―Religion on a Leash.‖
8 Lowe. ―Religion on a Leash.‖
9 Lowe. ―Religion on a Leash.‖
argument that it ―blasphemes‖ against religions suggest that the government
is judging the beliefs themselves [my emphasis] rather than their undesirable
manifestations. Similarly the government assumes that the apocalyptic
beliefs of the movement and its rejection of modern medicine make it clear
that it is a ―cult‖ rather than a religion.46
Evans notes that in China members of Falun Gong and other highly stigmatized sects are
held in custody for ―re-education,‖ a procedure which Evans maintains is analogous to
coercive deprogramming. Evans further suggests that ―detention for re-education, as well
as the process of re-education itself, amounts to coercion,‖ which is barred by international
law.47
So, I restate my earlier point that whatever ―analogies‖ Mr. Rosedale perceives between
Falun Gong and destructive American groups, in evaluating Chinese policy, one cannot
ignore the overall context of authoritarian state control. China is no longer trying (as Mao
attempted) to totally eradicate religions. However, ―The government is [still] committed to
transforming China into an atheist state and believes that the decline of religion is
inevitable.‖ Until this happens that government will allow a limited number of ‗official‘
religions. But from a religious freedom standpoint, ―Official religions are only permissible so
long as there is still freedom for people to belong to other, non-official religions.‖48 Such
freedom only exists in China to the degree that repressive rules are not uniformly enforced
in practice. The government meddles in internal religious matters (e.g., appointing the new
Panchen Lama) to ensure that religious practice and training is subordinate to ―patriotic‖
imperatives.
This is not freedom of religion. The transgressions and excesses of Falun Gong in China,
which may have been exaggerated, cannot justify the brutal persecution which Chinese
authorities have applied to the dissidents.49 Some of the control measures such as
involuntary hospitalization have also been employed against political dissidents. The
―psychopathology‖ rationale for such tactics cannot simply be accepted at face value. Nor
can the claims of authorities to not be persecuting beliefs in their attacks on a ―heretical
cult‖ be accepted. The overwhelming context of an intolerant, authoritarian regime cannot
be overlooked. Brutal persecution evokes and extrapolates the very excesses and
apocalyptic frenzies which may be complained of, thus fueling and rationalizing more
persecution.50
Notes
1 Herbert Rosedale, ―Perspectives on Cults as Affected by the September 11 Tragedy,‖ paper
presented in Beijing at the Meeting of the China Anti-Cult Association, December 2001.
2 According to Professor Scott Lowe, China does not have an independent anti-cult movement, i.e.,
Chinese anti-cult organizations are ultimately government controlled. Scott Lowe, ―Religion on a
Leash: NRMs and the Limits of Chinese Freedom,‖ forthcoming in Phillip Lucas and Thomas Robbins,
eds. New Religious Movements and State Control Around the Globe (New Religious Movements in the
Twenty-First Century), Routledge Books, 2003/2004.
3 Lowe. ―Religion on a Leash.‖
4 Lowe. ―Religion on a Leash.‖
5 Lowe. ―Religion on a Leash.‖
6 Lowe. ―Religion on a Leash.‖
7 Lowe. ―Religion on a Leash.‖
8 Lowe. ―Religion on a Leash.‖
9 Lowe. ―Religion on a Leash.‖
