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.
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.
