Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003

Ideology, Demonization, and Scholarship: The Need for Objectivity—A Response to Robbins' Comments on Rosedale, the Chinese Government, and Falun Gong

Herbert L. Rosedale

Abstract

Robbins' comments on Rosedale's paper presented to the Chinese Anti-Cult Association conference in December, 2001 (and published in Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2003) highlights many of the difficulties in dialogue and the distortions created by the effects of ideology in discussions relating to destructive cults.  Robbins purports to reflect his "distress" over possible support by elements of the "anticult movement" (ACM) in America for repressive activities by the Communist Chinese Government against Falun Gong, evidenced by Rosedale's failure to "denounce" brutal persecution and downplaying of the totalitarian nature of the Chinese authoritarian regime.  The flaw in Robbins' analysis is that it was prepared without knowledge of the context in which the paper was submitted and without direct inquiry as to ongoing communications between the American Family Foundation and the Chinese Anti-Cult Association. ([i])   It omits any analysis of the role of the state in regulating religion in various cultural backgrounds where religious practices come into conflict with secular restrictions on such practices.  It likewise ignores the necessary consideration of the impact of diverse cultures and history on aspects of belief and practice carried on in the name of religion, some in the context of a society based on separation of church and state and some where the two are blended with dynamic changes in the social fabric occurring at a rapid rate. ([ii])  Additionally, primary attribution of destructive tendencies in cultic groups to their responses to persecution is an oversimplified response to a complex problem which ignores divergence in responses of different groups to the degree of tolerance afforded in different cultural contexts.  My comment and response, however, does offer an opportunity for continuing dialogue and certainly raises the question as to where Robbins has addressed the kinds of concerns he faults Rosedale for "downplaying" when abridgements of human rights and the harm resulting there from are caused by destructive cultic groups.