Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 178
Certainly, there are valid concerns about the scope of religious freedom permitted in many
societies, including Chinese society, but those must be balanced with concerns about the
harm caused through manipulation and depravation of rights by zealous leaders and
followers. A balanced approach to the role of the state would include, as I indicated in my
paper, a determination of the appropriate role and limitations in implementing concerns with
respect to these harms.
Robbins also expresses concern about the abuse of psychiatry by China, particularly in
determining appropriate limitations in its impact upon religiously motivated behavior.
Robbins and Rosedale would concur about the need for ethical and professional restraints
and the development of appropriate standards, but Rosedale would not confine such
concerns to potential abuse in China with respect to Falun Gong members or other religious
zealots. Appropriate limitations on professional misconduct and ethics is an important
subject in many countries, including the United States, in areas involving the unlawful
practice of medicine, practice of harmful therapies by unlicensed and unregulated persons
(sometimes using mystical or religious justification), as well as corruption of academic
integrity through manipulation of professional standards. Those issues amplify the question
asked by Robbins in his commentary, which could be rephrased as follows: Can the
problem of cults really be discussed intelligently without reference to the balance between
society‘s responsibility to its citizenry and its responsibility to tolerate diversity of belief and
behavior among its members?
Robbins‘ comments on what he believed to be Rosedale‘s unwarranted lack of emphasis and
condemnation of repressive behavior in Chinese society directed towards Falun Gong and
other religious behavior could be explored through further discussion not dominated by
ideological political bashing.
Most importantly, there is a distinction between the perspectives of Robbins and Rosedale in
that Robbins and the authorities he cites, such as Professor Lowe, seem to be fixated on the
―simple continuation of earlier patterns of social control by the current Chinese government
without regard to perspectives of change.‖ What Robbins does not recognize is that the
common intellectual basis for the anti-cult movement in China is grounded in opposition to
the thousands of cultic groups that require members to emphasize non-rational, mystical
associations denigrating rational behavior. In the view of the anti-cultic groups the
practices of such groups are inimical to the development of a society based on the primacy
of individual thought, responsibility, and respect for the views of others. Robbins may not
agree with this approach when applied to religious or other mystical behavior, but it does
not help to try and analyze it as if it were a debate between Lenin and Trotsky and nothing
had happened since the 1920‘s. Taking that simplistic approach and limiting analysis to
alleged abuses by the Chinese government of Falun Gong practitioners ignores related
problems that trouble Chinese officials, such as terrorist ideologies of fundamentalist Islamic
groups in China, the expansion of public education, the overcoming of public obstacles to
health issues based on residual, mystical and/or religious allegiances that stubbornly resist
integration into modern society11, and the effects on changing rural/urban society of rapid
intellectual and technological growth. Conflicts between religious groups and others raising
obstacles to law enforcement differ in different societies and are treated in different ways.
Secular and religious authorities are sometimes repressive and sometimes heavy handed
dealing with complex issues of public health safety. In times of rapid cultural changes,
some with social discontinuity, there are many issues arising out of and relating to that
change which ought put the question about Falun Gong and Chinese society into perspective
in a larger frame.
Certainly, cultural change does not justify brutal treatment and the abridgement of civil
rights. However, a productive outcome is probably more likely if one addresses the
existence and scope of those problems through dialogue and discussion (which AFF is
Certainly, there are valid concerns about the scope of religious freedom permitted in many
societies, including Chinese society, but those must be balanced with concerns about the
harm caused through manipulation and depravation of rights by zealous leaders and
followers. A balanced approach to the role of the state would include, as I indicated in my
paper, a determination of the appropriate role and limitations in implementing concerns with
respect to these harms.
Robbins also expresses concern about the abuse of psychiatry by China, particularly in
determining appropriate limitations in its impact upon religiously motivated behavior.
Robbins and Rosedale would concur about the need for ethical and professional restraints
and the development of appropriate standards, but Rosedale would not confine such
concerns to potential abuse in China with respect to Falun Gong members or other religious
zealots. Appropriate limitations on professional misconduct and ethics is an important
subject in many countries, including the United States, in areas involving the unlawful
practice of medicine, practice of harmful therapies by unlicensed and unregulated persons
(sometimes using mystical or religious justification), as well as corruption of academic
integrity through manipulation of professional standards. Those issues amplify the question
asked by Robbins in his commentary, which could be rephrased as follows: Can the
problem of cults really be discussed intelligently without reference to the balance between
society‘s responsibility to its citizenry and its responsibility to tolerate diversity of belief and
behavior among its members?
Robbins‘ comments on what he believed to be Rosedale‘s unwarranted lack of emphasis and
condemnation of repressive behavior in Chinese society directed towards Falun Gong and
other religious behavior could be explored through further discussion not dominated by
ideological political bashing.
Most importantly, there is a distinction between the perspectives of Robbins and Rosedale in
that Robbins and the authorities he cites, such as Professor Lowe, seem to be fixated on the
―simple continuation of earlier patterns of social control by the current Chinese government
without regard to perspectives of change.‖ What Robbins does not recognize is that the
common intellectual basis for the anti-cult movement in China is grounded in opposition to
the thousands of cultic groups that require members to emphasize non-rational, mystical
associations denigrating rational behavior. In the view of the anti-cultic groups the
practices of such groups are inimical to the development of a society based on the primacy
of individual thought, responsibility, and respect for the views of others. Robbins may not
agree with this approach when applied to religious or other mystical behavior, but it does
not help to try and analyze it as if it were a debate between Lenin and Trotsky and nothing
had happened since the 1920‘s. Taking that simplistic approach and limiting analysis to
alleged abuses by the Chinese government of Falun Gong practitioners ignores related
problems that trouble Chinese officials, such as terrorist ideologies of fundamentalist Islamic
groups in China, the expansion of public education, the overcoming of public obstacles to
health issues based on residual, mystical and/or religious allegiances that stubbornly resist
integration into modern society11, and the effects on changing rural/urban society of rapid
intellectual and technological growth. Conflicts between religious groups and others raising
obstacles to law enforcement differ in different societies and are treated in different ways.
Secular and religious authorities are sometimes repressive and sometimes heavy handed
dealing with complex issues of public health safety. In times of rapid cultural changes,
some with social discontinuity, there are many issues arising out of and relating to that
change which ought put the question about Falun Gong and Chinese society into perspective
in a larger frame.
Certainly, cultural change does not justify brutal treatment and the abridgement of civil
rights. However, a productive outcome is probably more likely if one addresses the
existence and scope of those problems through dialogue and discussion (which AFF is
