Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 176
These continuing dialogues have been generally regarded as helpful in addressing concerns
about the role of religion and the obligations of the state to provide support for the public
health, welfare, and well being of its citizenry as well as respecting diverse values and
practices, including religious practices and the tolerance of divergent beliefs. These are not
meetings in which the American ―ACM‖ lectures representatives of another culture on how
they should conform to our values. The meetings recognize differences as well as
commonalties, and discussions cover matters of such universal concern as the rights of
women, children, and families and the responsibilities of public health and other
professionals. Respect for human rights has always been a matter of utmost concern in our
discussions.
It is in this context that I take umbrage at Robbins‘ carping about specific incidents of
alleged abuse that I did not mention in my paper, which dealt with general principles for
evaluating specific cases, not specific cases per se. Had he had the information or made the
necessary inquiries to place the paper in the context of our continuing dialogue,
communications, and need for exchange between diverse cultures as we enter upon the
21st Century, I am sure his views would have been modified. Although Robbins could argue
with some justification that my paper should have anticipated objections such as he made,
his lack of understanding of the paper‘s context and his failure to seek additional
information from me or my colleagues reflect the stereotype-reinforcing consequences of
the lack of dialogue between so-called ―pro‖ and ―anti‖ cultists (although much progress has
been made in this area during recent years). Fortunately, he at least took the time to make
his views known and thereby created an opportunity to clarify the issue. In the past, even
this exchange would probably not have happened, and uninformed and inaccurate negative
stereotypes would have been reaffirmed.
Cults and Culture
With the preceding background, it should be evident that there is a substantial area of
commonality in Robbins‘ and Rosedale‘s approaches when these approaches are applied to
comments about the Chinese government and Falun Gong. Robbins‘ fixation on ideology,
however, infects his analysis of Rosedale‘s paper and his approach to the issues with which
it deals.
Cults and indeed all religions, majority or minority, new or old, cannot be viewed outside
the context of the cultures in which they function or without regard to the historic
perspective or the political realities of the time addressed. Cults are not solely religious in
their nature, the essence of the ties that bind the follower and leader being, in some
instances, political or psychological or based on other relationships exploiting dependency.7
While there are commonalties in organization and structure and method of control, each cult
must be analyzed separately, and within the cult there is no identity of the level of
member‘s commitment, the abandonment of his or her individuality, or the degree of
unquestioning fealty.
There are likewise contrasting ―macro‖ and micro‖ approaches in which one addresses the
role of the group and its relationships to other individuals and groups in society as well as
the areas of permissible latitude and behavioral autonomy in a pluralistic environment,
contrasted with conformity demanded in a totalistic environment where there is no
separation of church and state and continuing proof of an ideological totalistic commitment
is demanded by the controlling powers.8
Rosedale‘s paper addressed the need for historical analysis in drawing parallels with respect
to cults in an American culture stressing our tradition of the limitation of state power with
consequent recognition of residual individual freedoms as opposed to states with a history of

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 177
broad social control [contrasted with emphases on individual responsibility] and
accountability where the state had larger involvement in the lives of its citizens.
Of course, in analyzing responses of the Chinese government to Falun Gong, one should not
ignore that aspect of Chinese history in which zealous groups incited political turbulence any
more than one should ignore the development of individual liberty and religious freedom in
western civilization through conflicts separating the authority of church and state. To
recognize this historic view is not to approve or disapprove of secular regulation of religion
or to evaluate positively or negatively individual abuses of power in the name of religious or
secular goals. Where Robbins and Rosedale may differ is in positing absolutes in the area of
freedom, whether in the name of religion or secular idealism. Rosedale believes that there
are balances required between state obligations to its citizenry and the ambit of toleration of
religiously motivated behavior extended to extremes that may differ from culture to culture.
Consensus as to where boundaries should be drawn can benefit from continued dialogue
and genuine appreciation of change and continuity in history. Recognition of the sometimes
uneven pace of such change does not constitute approbation of the status quo.
In responding to Robbins‘ comments, I will not engage in a debate about conflicting views
with respect to the Chinese government‘s treatment of members of Falun Gong or their
supporters, nor will I discuss interpretations of the historical background enabling us to
place such behavior in appropriate cultural context or Robbins‘ ideological condemnation of
the Chinese government from a perspective that ignores and unaccountably downplays
recent changes and the current vital significance of present and prospective changes.9
Discussion of some of those issues is foreclosed by the fact that in significant instances,
Robbins relies on inaccessible material to support his assertions, so a current reader is
unable to evaluate the scholarship and basis upon which conclusions are based. It is not
very helpful to footnote or quote an article to be included in a book to be published later this
year or next year.
A prime example of this is Professor Scott Lowe‘s conclusion that ―China does not have an
independent anti-cult movement because Chinese anti-cult organizations are ultimately
government controlled‖ (Robbins‘ footnote 2). I have met with and had extensive
discussions with members of the Executive Committee of the Chinese Anti-Cult Association.
They are university professors, as is Professor Lowe, who is also connected with a state
university. Perhaps he includes in his as yet unpublished article factual information that
would demonstrate that the directors of the CACA are ―government controlled‖ or that their
employers are more controlling than his. From speaking to them, I know that their views
are not identical. They are diverse, and they are not a group of ideologues who believe that
the Chinese communist party must dominate Chinese society so as to control or destroy all
possible rivals or suppress diversity within the Chinese Republic.
I have also spoken to ex members of the Falun Gong and do not believe that their evidence
of harm caused them and their families by Falun Gong is based on coached formulaic
confessions obtained under torture any more than I believe that all testimony of ex cult
members must be rejected as ―atrocity tales.‖10 A recent problem which illuminates our
discussion is the conflict between public health concerns of the Chinese government with
respect to its constituency dealing with treatment of the SARS epidemic contrasted with
behavior of Falun Gong members as illustrated in the article by Fisher, ―Resistance and
Salvation in Falun Gong,‖ in the April 2003 issue of Nova Religio at pages 294-311, which
stresses the virtue of Falun Gong members‘ refusal of medical treatment in order to gain
good karma and improve spiritual development. Think of how such health practices impact
on a state‘s obligation to deal with an epidemic of infectious disease and protect its citizens
from the spread of infection by those refusing medical treatment and quarantine.