Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 175
conferences by members of groups that some regard as destructive cults as well as by
scholars that some would regard as cult apologists. Attendees over the years have included
numerous members of many groups characterized as destructive cults. AFF believes that it
is important to provide audiences and forums on issues of significance such as Falun Gong,
facilitated by presentations from scholars from different universities giving information as to
the history practices and structure of Falun Gong.4
Presentations have been made at conferences and post-conference AFF advisory board
meetings by representatives of the Chinese government explaining the basis of their
government‘s concerns about the Falun Gong movement and actions taken with respect to
it. The audience of attendees reflected many different perspectives from many countries
with different backgrounds, and ensuing discussions were spirited covering a wide range of
issues dealing with the practices of the Chinese government with respect to various religious
groups and concerned with various issues relating to the health and welfare of members of
Chinese society and the obligations of government with respect thereto, as well as the
recognition of freedom, tolerance, and diversity.5 I have no idea after reading Robbins‘
paper what he was told, if anything, by anyone who was present at the exchange of views,
since his vague recollections about the views of AFF ―members‖ is not evident from his
―comments.‖ Having been there, I could not easily summarize the divergent views
expressed in as few words as he gives to this issue.
Perhaps as a result of that dialogue, I received an invitation to present a paper at a meeting
of the Chinese Anti-Cult Association in Beijing in December 2001. That paper is the subject
of Robbins‘ comments. The paper was presented to illustrate commonalties and differences
in various cultural responses to threats by destructive cults over extended periods and the
necessity of evaluation on a case-by-case basis, both with respect to the group and the
culture of the responses involved. The paper was perceived as the beginning of an on-going
dialogue and, in fact, was just that. Not only did I present the paper at the conference, but
I engaged in dialogue supplementing various aspects of the presentation with members of
the Chinese Anti-Cult Association, including scholars from various universities in China and
religious and political representatives. I also spoke to students at a university in Beijing
attended by students from autonomous regions in China, and I specifically addressed issues
of diversity, tolerance, and contemporary changes in Chinese society, particularly those
occurring in the last generation and those which we are facing in the future. At no time was
I muzzled or censored, and the questions and comments of my audiences clearly reflected a
range of views far wider than one would expect given current negative stereotypes of
Chinese society.
Certainly, Robbins was unaware of this latter presentation or the manner in which it fit into
the dialogue which continues to this day. Subsequent to December 2001, AFF was pleased
to host a delegation from China at its 2002 annual conference in Orlando, Florida, at which
there was a vibrant discussion concerning aspects of the relationship of the Chinese
government policies relating to Falun Gong and other religious, political, and ideological
groups in China. Our recent June 2003 conference at the Chapman University Conference
Center in Orange, California included a session involving two members of Falun Gong and a
spirited discussion (that went nearly two hours overtime) involving audience members, at
least half-dozen of whom were Falun Gong members. A representative from the Chinese
Embassy in Washington was present for most of this fascinating discussion. Those
discussions cover some aspects that Robbins believes were ignored or downplayed in the
paper, which he could have ascertained through a more thorough inquiry.6
Beyond those meetings, AFF hosted a visit from various Chinese educational and mental
health professionals in the fall of 2002, and further dialogues ensued over a period of days
among people of divergent views. AFF continues its frank, full discussions of many of the
issues involving cults in our current society.
conferences by members of groups that some regard as destructive cults as well as by
scholars that some would regard as cult apologists. Attendees over the years have included
numerous members of many groups characterized as destructive cults. AFF believes that it
is important to provide audiences and forums on issues of significance such as Falun Gong,
facilitated by presentations from scholars from different universities giving information as to
the history practices and structure of Falun Gong.4
Presentations have been made at conferences and post-conference AFF advisory board
meetings by representatives of the Chinese government explaining the basis of their
government‘s concerns about the Falun Gong movement and actions taken with respect to
it. The audience of attendees reflected many different perspectives from many countries
with different backgrounds, and ensuing discussions were spirited covering a wide range of
issues dealing with the practices of the Chinese government with respect to various religious
groups and concerned with various issues relating to the health and welfare of members of
Chinese society and the obligations of government with respect thereto, as well as the
recognition of freedom, tolerance, and diversity.5 I have no idea after reading Robbins‘
paper what he was told, if anything, by anyone who was present at the exchange of views,
since his vague recollections about the views of AFF ―members‖ is not evident from his
―comments.‖ Having been there, I could not easily summarize the divergent views
expressed in as few words as he gives to this issue.
Perhaps as a result of that dialogue, I received an invitation to present a paper at a meeting
of the Chinese Anti-Cult Association in Beijing in December 2001. That paper is the subject
of Robbins‘ comments. The paper was presented to illustrate commonalties and differences
in various cultural responses to threats by destructive cults over extended periods and the
necessity of evaluation on a case-by-case basis, both with respect to the group and the
culture of the responses involved. The paper was perceived as the beginning of an on-going
dialogue and, in fact, was just that. Not only did I present the paper at the conference, but
I engaged in dialogue supplementing various aspects of the presentation with members of
the Chinese Anti-Cult Association, including scholars from various universities in China and
religious and political representatives. I also spoke to students at a university in Beijing
attended by students from autonomous regions in China, and I specifically addressed issues
of diversity, tolerance, and contemporary changes in Chinese society, particularly those
occurring in the last generation and those which we are facing in the future. At no time was
I muzzled or censored, and the questions and comments of my audiences clearly reflected a
range of views far wider than one would expect given current negative stereotypes of
Chinese society.
Certainly, Robbins was unaware of this latter presentation or the manner in which it fit into
the dialogue which continues to this day. Subsequent to December 2001, AFF was pleased
to host a delegation from China at its 2002 annual conference in Orlando, Florida, at which
there was a vibrant discussion concerning aspects of the relationship of the Chinese
government policies relating to Falun Gong and other religious, political, and ideological
groups in China. Our recent June 2003 conference at the Chapman University Conference
Center in Orange, California included a session involving two members of Falun Gong and a
spirited discussion (that went nearly two hours overtime) involving audience members, at
least half-dozen of whom were Falun Gong members. A representative from the Chinese
Embassy in Washington was present for most of this fascinating discussion. Those
discussions cover some aspects that Robbins believes were ignored or downplayed in the
paper, which he could have ascertained through a more thorough inquiry.6
Beyond those meetings, AFF hosted a visit from various Chinese educational and mental
health professionals in the fall of 2002, and further dialogues ensued over a period of days
among people of divergent views. AFF continues its frank, full discussions of many of the
issues involving cults in our current society.
