Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 174
Ideology, Demonization, and Scholarship: The Need for
Objectivity—A Response to Robbins’ Comments on
Rosedale, the Chinese Government, and Falun Gong
Herbert L. Rosedale, Esq.
American Family Foundation
Abstract
Robbins‘ comments on Rosedale‘s paper presented to the Chinese Anti-Cult
Association conference in December, 2001 (and published in Cultic Studies
Review, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2003) highlights many of the difficulties in dialogue and
the distortions created by the effects of ideology in discussions relating to
destructive cults. Robbins purports to reflect his ―distress‖ over possible
support by elements of the ―anticult movement‖ (ACM) in America for
repressive activities by the Communist Chinese Government against Falun
Gong, evidenced by Rosedale‘s failure to ―denounce‖ brutal persecution and
downplaying of the totalitarian nature of the Chinese authoritarian regime.
The flaw in Robbins‘ analysis is that it was prepared without knowledge of the
context in which the paper was submitted and without direct inquiry as to
ongoing communications between the American Family Foundation and the
Chinese Anti-Cult Association.1 It omits any analysis of the role of the state
in regulating religion in various cultural backgrounds where religious practices
come into conflict with secular restrictions on such practices. It likewise
ignores the necessary consideration of the impact of diverse cultures and
history on aspects of belief and practice carried on in the name of religion,
some in the context of a society based on separation of church and state and
some where the two are blended with dynamic changes in the social fabric
occurring at a rapid rate.2 Additionally, primary attribution of destructive
tendencies in cultic groups to their responses to persecution is an
oversimplified response to a complex problem which ignores divergence in
responses of different groups to the degree of tolerance afforded in different
cultural contexts. My comment and response, however, does offer an
opportunity for continuing dialogue and certainly raises the question as to
where Robbins has addressed the kinds of concerns he faults Rosedale for
―downplaying‖ when abridgements of human rights and the harm resulting
there from are caused by destructive cultic groups.
In responding to Robbins‘ comments on the paper I presented to the meeting of the Chinese
Anti-Cult Association in Beijing in December, 2001, it is essential to set the record straight
and provide the contextual background omitted in Robbins‘ comments, all of which could
have been obtained through direct communication. Providing that background will not only
respond to Robbins‘ asserted alarm and distress, but will also serve to highlight the need for
straining away pre-formulated ideology from discussions about cult-related issues and the
need to recognize the impact of changes occurring since positions were first formulated
more than a generation ago.3
Contacts between AFF and representatives of the Chinese Anti-Cult Association developed
over the past few years to enhance dialogue and discussion and not to provide forums for
approbation or chastisement.
To those apologist scholars who write about the so-called ACM, I note that AFF has no
membership, nor a set of official pronouncements. Conferences are open to all members of
the public regardless of their ideological views. Presentations have been made at AFF
Ideology, Demonization, and Scholarship: The Need for
Objectivity—A Response to Robbins’ Comments on
Rosedale, the Chinese Government, and Falun Gong
Herbert L. Rosedale, Esq.
American Family Foundation
Abstract
Robbins‘ comments on Rosedale‘s paper presented to the Chinese Anti-Cult
Association conference in December, 2001 (and published in Cultic Studies
Review, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2003) highlights many of the difficulties in dialogue and
the distortions created by the effects of ideology in discussions relating to
destructive cults. Robbins purports to reflect his ―distress‖ over possible
support by elements of the ―anticult movement‖ (ACM) in America for
repressive activities by the Communist Chinese Government against Falun
Gong, evidenced by Rosedale‘s failure to ―denounce‖ brutal persecution and
downplaying of the totalitarian nature of the Chinese authoritarian regime.
The flaw in Robbins‘ analysis is that it was prepared without knowledge of the
context in which the paper was submitted and without direct inquiry as to
ongoing communications between the American Family Foundation and the
Chinese Anti-Cult Association.1 It omits any analysis of the role of the state
in regulating religion in various cultural backgrounds where religious practices
come into conflict with secular restrictions on such practices. It likewise
ignores the necessary consideration of the impact of diverse cultures and
history on aspects of belief and practice carried on in the name of religion,
some in the context of a society based on separation of church and state and
some where the two are blended with dynamic changes in the social fabric
occurring at a rapid rate.2 Additionally, primary attribution of destructive
tendencies in cultic groups to their responses to persecution is an
oversimplified response to a complex problem which ignores divergence in
responses of different groups to the degree of tolerance afforded in different
cultural contexts. My comment and response, however, does offer an
opportunity for continuing dialogue and certainly raises the question as to
where Robbins has addressed the kinds of concerns he faults Rosedale for
―downplaying‖ when abridgements of human rights and the harm resulting
there from are caused by destructive cultic groups.
In responding to Robbins‘ comments on the paper I presented to the meeting of the Chinese
Anti-Cult Association in Beijing in December, 2001, it is essential to set the record straight
and provide the contextual background omitted in Robbins‘ comments, all of which could
have been obtained through direct communication. Providing that background will not only
respond to Robbins‘ asserted alarm and distress, but will also serve to highlight the need for
straining away pre-formulated ideology from discussions about cult-related issues and the
need to recognize the impact of changes occurring since positions were first formulated
more than a generation ago.3
Contacts between AFF and representatives of the Chinese Anti-Cult Association developed
over the past few years to enhance dialogue and discussion and not to provide forums for
approbation or chastisement.
To those apologist scholars who write about the so-called ACM, I note that AFF has no
membership, nor a set of official pronouncements. Conferences are open to all members of
the public regardless of their ideological views. Presentations have been made at AFF
