Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 212
I would add the following questions for the Chinese government to consider:
1. Given the virtual universality of religion in human culture, is it wise or even feasible
to enforce atheism as the ―official‖ state policy, a kind of official state ―religion‖
without ritual? Might it be more effective to keep the state neutral in fundamental
beliefs about the cosmos, as is the case in most western democracies, some of which
ironically may have higher percentages of atheists than China? This question may be
derivative of perhaps a more fundamental question, namely, is it in China‘s best
interests to abandon Marxist ideology, as happened in the former Soviet Union?
2. Is Falun Gong representative of a wider problem in China (and many other countries,
including the United States), namely, the widespread adherence to magical and
quasi-magical belief systems and irrational, subjectivist approaches to life?1 If so, is
Falun Gong serving as a scapegoat that deflects attention and resources from the
more fundamental social problem?
My main fear when I look at the conflict between Falun Gong and the Chinese government is
that the ruler-sectarian paradigm may have reached a point of no return where there are
only bad outcomes. If Falun Gong is squashed, many more innocent people will be hurt,
China‘s standing in the community of nations will deteriorate, and civil unrest could grow
beneath the repression. If the government were overthrown by an irrational, religious-
political movement (which wouldn‘t necessarily have to be Falun Gong), the entire world will
have reason to worry. China is one of the most powerful nations on Earth, and it has a
massive arsenal of nuclear and biochemical weapons. Certainly, we don‘t want to see this
arsenal come under the control of a leader with dangerous religious delusions. Some
believe that North Korea is particularly worrisome for this reason (Centner, 2002). Hence, I
sympathize with those Chinese who fear the rise of religious-political movements. But my
heart also goes out to those Falun Gong members who have been beaten or have seen or
heard reports from abused family members.
Both sides in the controversy need to put their passion aside. Falun Gong should pay more
attention to reports of harm associated with its practices or the organization and actively
seek to minimize such harm. The Chinese government should accelerate its movement
toward transparency and disown and prosecute those who brutalize people in the name of
preserving public order. The short-term benefits that repression brings to government
officials and law enforcement authorities may have long-term costs that can only be avoided
by taking the risk of granting more freedom now.
Note
1 In the text of the Chinese Parliament's resolution banning ―heretic cults‖ one paragraph
acknowledged this broader problem: ―Long-term, comprehensive instruction on the constitution and
the law should be carried out among all citizens, knowledge of science and technology should be
popularized and the national literacy level raised.‖ (BBC News, 1999, 30 October). Many of us
concerned about cult-related harms, including many deeply religious people, have advocated
preventive educational programs designed to strengthen the capacity of young people to recognize
sophistry and its effects. Religion is not necessarily anti-rational and anti-science indeed, many
pioneers in the history of science were clerics. However, when a religion is so subjective and irrational
in its epistemology that no line of reasoning or empirical evidence can alter the leadership's thinking
on even minor matters of doctrine, only three ways of managing disagreements between leadership
and members remain: coercion, emotional manipulation, and ostracism. Such a ―cognitive climate,‖ in
my opinion, puts a group at higher risk of developing cultic dynamics of control.
I would add the following questions for the Chinese government to consider:
1. Given the virtual universality of religion in human culture, is it wise or even feasible
to enforce atheism as the ―official‖ state policy, a kind of official state ―religion‖
without ritual? Might it be more effective to keep the state neutral in fundamental
beliefs about the cosmos, as is the case in most western democracies, some of which
ironically may have higher percentages of atheists than China? This question may be
derivative of perhaps a more fundamental question, namely, is it in China‘s best
interests to abandon Marxist ideology, as happened in the former Soviet Union?
2. Is Falun Gong representative of a wider problem in China (and many other countries,
including the United States), namely, the widespread adherence to magical and
quasi-magical belief systems and irrational, subjectivist approaches to life?1 If so, is
Falun Gong serving as a scapegoat that deflects attention and resources from the
more fundamental social problem?
My main fear when I look at the conflict between Falun Gong and the Chinese government is
that the ruler-sectarian paradigm may have reached a point of no return where there are
only bad outcomes. If Falun Gong is squashed, many more innocent people will be hurt,
China‘s standing in the community of nations will deteriorate, and civil unrest could grow
beneath the repression. If the government were overthrown by an irrational, religious-
political movement (which wouldn‘t necessarily have to be Falun Gong), the entire world will
have reason to worry. China is one of the most powerful nations on Earth, and it has a
massive arsenal of nuclear and biochemical weapons. Certainly, we don‘t want to see this
arsenal come under the control of a leader with dangerous religious delusions. Some
believe that North Korea is particularly worrisome for this reason (Centner, 2002). Hence, I
sympathize with those Chinese who fear the rise of religious-political movements. But my
heart also goes out to those Falun Gong members who have been beaten or have seen or
heard reports from abused family members.
Both sides in the controversy need to put their passion aside. Falun Gong should pay more
attention to reports of harm associated with its practices or the organization and actively
seek to minimize such harm. The Chinese government should accelerate its movement
toward transparency and disown and prosecute those who brutalize people in the name of
preserving public order. The short-term benefits that repression brings to government
officials and law enforcement authorities may have long-term costs that can only be avoided
by taking the risk of granting more freedom now.
Note
1 In the text of the Chinese Parliament's resolution banning ―heretic cults‖ one paragraph
acknowledged this broader problem: ―Long-term, comprehensive instruction on the constitution and
the law should be carried out among all citizens, knowledge of science and technology should be
popularized and the national literacy level raised.‖ (BBC News, 1999, 30 October). Many of us
concerned about cult-related harms, including many deeply religious people, have advocated
preventive educational programs designed to strengthen the capacity of young people to recognize
sophistry and its effects. Religion is not necessarily anti-rational and anti-science indeed, many
pioneers in the history of science were clerics. However, when a religion is so subjective and irrational
in its epistemology that no line of reasoning or empirical evidence can alter the leadership's thinking
on even minor matters of doctrine, only three ways of managing disagreements between leadership
and members remain: coercion, emotional manipulation, and ostracism. Such a ―cognitive climate,‖ in
my opinion, puts a group at higher risk of developing cultic dynamics of control.
