Talking Point: Chinese statement on the banning of the FLG spiritual movement

1. visitor left...

Where exactly is the contradiction?

2. ACB left...

"Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief"

Beijing violated the constitution by making up rediculious stories in order to ban a religious group that it feared unite people in opposition to the government.

3. visitor left...

What about the bit of the constitution that says:

"国家保护正常的宗教活动。任何人不得利用宗教进行破坏社会秩序、损害公民身体健康、妨碍国家教育制度的活动。宗教团体和宗教事务不受外国势力的支配。"

Does FLG still qualify as "正常的宗教活动"? If it doesn't, does it give the government the right to ban it?

4. ACB left...

I suggest that you read up on FLG. Their activities are largely based on Budist meditation and outlook. So if Budhism counts as 'normal' then so do they.

In reality, Beijing is using 'religious practices' as a cover for banning FLG because it knows that it is an easy way to make the people suspisious of them.

This is political. Beijing is afraid of any organized groups whom it does not control.

5. visitor left...

What exactly do you want me to read? Surely you know FLG does not always practise what they preach? Or am I just supposed to believe their written text only?

I got the following from wikipedia, so correct me if I'm wrong:

---

After being introduced to the public in May, 1992 by Li Hongzhi, the Falun Gong gained thousands of followers and was granted several awards by Chinese government organizations. The popularity and acceptance of Falun Gong continued until 1999, when there was a series of Falun Gong protests in TV stations, newspaper and magazine headquarters and Zhongnanhai, the headquarters of the central Chinese governement in Beijing. After these protests, the government banned the Falun Gong for what it stated was illegal activities.

---

Doesn't this imply that the FLG initiated the conflict with the Chinese government with their protests? Are such protests against goverment common as religous activities? What exactly did they protest about? Would you consider some of these protests "破坏社会秩序"?

What about the following bits of FLG preaching on health:

---

* The true cause of disease is considered karmic, Li doesn't claim that viruses and bacteria are not behind people's illnesses, but he professes that they are not the root cause. Karma is thought to be of material existence in higher (more microcosmic) dimensions and is said to be intertwined with previous misdeeds as well as bad emotions and attachments like jealousy, greed, anger and hatred - all kinds of things that are not in tune with Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance, the so-called "characteristic of the universe." Thus, according to Li, only by letting go of these attachments and bearing hardships can one eliminate karma and have the root of their illnesses removed.

* Master Li claims to possess the supernatural power to heal illnesses.

---

Surely this can be considered under "损害公民身体健康"?

"In reality, Beijing is using 'religious practices' as a cover for banning FLG because it knows that it is an easy way to make the people suspisious of them."

What people? The Chinese people or the foreigners? Surely Beijing is too aware of its complete lack of credibility among its own people to bother with a cover up. Or are you saying none of the crimes that Beijing has accused of FLG are true, and FLG is just another normal religion?

"This is political. Beijing is afraid of any organized groups whom it does not control."

Of course the crackdown on FLG is political, FLG is a semi-political organisation with political agendas conflicting with Beijing's. What else did you expect?

6. ACB left...

Ah, I smell a ruse. A long one at that.

“What people? The Chinese people or the foreigners?”

Both, but what is said to Chinese is sometimes different from what is said to foreigners.

“Surely Beijing is too aware of its complete lack of credibility among its own people to bother with a cover up”

This has never stopped them before. Do you remember SARS?

“Would you consider some of these protests "破坏社会秩序"?”

You are reading the literal western translation, not the actual Chinese “破坏” does not mean 'to disrupt”, a temporary thing. It means 'to destroy', 'to rend', or 'to break apart'.

破坏社会秩序, does not mean causing 'a disruption' to social order, which a protest is, it means “to destroy the reigning order of society”.

Besides, The FLG protests were permitted under chapter II article 35 of the constitution (中华人民共和国公民有言论、出版、集会、结社、游行、示威的自由). Which Beijing violated.

“Doesn't this imply that the FLG initiated the conflict with the Chinese government with their protests?”

Yes, it does.

“Are such protests against government common as religious activities?”

In the rest of the world, yes. There are religious rallies against government policy on such issues as human rights, family values, or foreign policy on a daily basis.

In China, no, because Beijing carefully controls religious groups to ensure that religious leaders are pro-Beijing. The same is true for all organized groups, including labor unions, students unions and large scale social groups (it recently shut down a big gay pride meeting in Beijing, not because it was about homosexuality, but because it was organized independently of the state).

A prime example of this was how Beijing cracked down on the leaders of the Anti-Japanese rallies last year. As soon as it became clear that they were powerful and out of state control, they were arrested. Even though they were fighting for the rights of the Chinese people, and were not a political movement. This was unconstitutional. Chinese have the legal right to protest.

Saying this, protests are becoming increasingly common within community groups. For example villagers are protesting over illegal land seizures and pollution. There were over 80,000 serious demonstrations last year. And that is using official Chinese government statistics, not forieng statistics.

“FLG is a semi-political organisation with political agendas conflicting with Beijing's”

You're definition of political is different form mine. Are you saying that religious freedom is wrong?

“What about the following bits of FLG preaching on health ......Surely this can be considered under "损害公民身体健康"?”

You are a foreigner, you read the words, but do not understand them.

FLG does permit the use of medicine for 'traditional' illnesses, like flu. But it espouses that people should not rely on drugs to make them well, and instead should avoid illness by living a healthy lifestyle (both mentally and physically). This is the core of FLG.

Once you get past the mysticism, and take things allegorically, rather than literally, it's actually quite practical. Look after your mind and body, and you won't get sick.

You should not look at this in a western context. Instead look at it in an Asian context. I will give you a transposed example. Do not think “following FLG will magically repel sickness”, instead think “Excesses weaken your body” or “if you don't drink, you won't get hung over”.

This thinking is traditionally Chinese and has existed for thousands of years. The government is communist, which is a foreign idea, and it has existed for only 50 years. Which is better for China?

“Master Li claims to possess the supernatural power to heal illnesses.”

Has it been proven, by independent scientific studies, that he doesn't?

7. visitor left...

"Both, but what is said to Chinese is sometimes different from what is said to foreigners."

Are you talking about things in general or just the FLG issue? Do you think in the case of FLG, the Chinese government has been telling different things to its citizens and foreigners? If you think so, could you give us an example?

"This has never stopped them before. Do you remember SARS?"

No it hasn't. But you do realize SARS is quite different from FLG protests. SARS is about a few hundred people getting sick and dieing in hosptials. FLG protests are about 10s of thousands of people protesting in your face in major cities of China. Covering up SARS is to hide the incompetency of the government and it requires shutting a couple of hundres people up. What can you do to shut up 10s of thousands of FLG devotees who would not be shut up? Surely the only thing that Beijing could do was to lie about the nature of FLG, but do you think the Chinese people would've been naive enough to believe what Beijing was telling them when the reality had been completely different?

"You are reading the literal western translation, not the actual Chinese “破坏” does not mean 'to disrupt”, a temporary thing. It means 'to destroy', 'to rend', or 'to break apart'."

Really? I'm a native speaker of Mandarin, and to me, “破坏” in this context means to "disrupt". Especially given the fact that the direct object of “破坏” is "社会秩序" which means "(ordinary) social order and activity", I don't see the difference between "disrupt" and "destroy" in this context.

"Besides, The FLG protests were permitted under chapter II article 35 of the constitution (中华人民共和国公民有言论、出版、集会、结社、游行、示威的自由). Which Beijing violated."

I cannot argue with that. But again, the consitution also says that "任何人不 得利用宗教进行破坏社会秩序", do you think this statement is in contradiction with "示威的自由"? The constitution seems to saction any form of "示威", is this reasonable? Is it still "示威" if it "破坏社会秩序"? If you read "中华人民共和国集会游行示威法", it defines "示威" as: " 本法所称示威，是指在露天公共场所或者公共道路上以集会、游行、静坐等方式，表达要求、抗议或者支持、声援等共同意愿的活动". The chapter on "集会游行示威的申请和许可" also says the following:

第七条　举行集会、游行、示威，必须依照本法规定向主管机关提出申请并获得许可.

第八条　举行集会、游行、示威，必须有负责人。 　　依照本法规定需要申请的集会、游行、示砘，其负责人必须在举行日期的五日前向主管机关递交书面申请。申请书中应当载明集会、游行、示威的目的、方式、标语、 口号、人数、车辆数、使用音响设备的种类与数量、起止时间、地点（包括集合地和解散地）、路线和负责人的姓名、职业、住址。

第九条　主管机关接到集会、游行、示威申请书后，应当在申请举行日期的二日前，将许可或者不许可的决定书通知其负责人。不许可的，应当说明理由。逾期不通知的， 视为许可。 　　确因突然发生的事件临时要求举行集体、游行、示威的，必须立即报告主管机关；主管机关接到报告后，应当立即审查决定许可或者不许可。

第十条　申请举行集会、游行、示威要求解决具体问题的，主管机关接到申请书后，可以通知有关机关或者单位同集会、游行、示威的负责人协商解决问题，并可以将申请 举行的时间推迟五日。

第十一条　主管机关认为按照申请的时间、地点、路线举行集会、游行、示威，将对交通秩序和社会秩序造成严重影响的，在决定许可时或者决定许可后，可以变更举行集 会、游行、示威的时间、地点、路线，并及时通知其负责人。

第二十三条　在下列场所周边距离十米至三百米内，不得举行集会、游行、示威，经国务院或者省、自治区、直辖市的人民政府批准的除外： 　　（一）全国人民代表大会常务委员会、国务院、中央军事委员会、最高人民法院、最高人民检察院的所在地；

第二十九条　举行集会、游行、示威，有犯罪行为的，依照刑法有关规定追究刑事责任。 包围、冲击国家机关，致使国家机关的公务活动或者国事活动不能正常进行的，对集会、游行、示威的负责人和直接责任人员依照刑法第一百五十八条的规定追究刑事责任 。

Now, I'm not 100% sure about the organisation of the FLG protests, but I believe they indeed violated at least one of the above laws thus making their protests illegal. Would this still give them the right to protest?

"In the rest of the world, yes. There are religious rallies against government policy on such issues as human rights, family values, or foreign policy on a daily basis."

Really? I don't believe I've heard of a protest against governments of the same scale as the FLG ones that consists of people exclusively from that particular religion, with the exception of middle east and India where religion is so integrated into daily lives.

What exactly was the issue that the FLG protesters protested about? Was it about human rights, family values or foreign policies? I can understand human rights and family values as they are part of any religion.

"A prime example of this was how Beijing cracked down on the leaders of the Anti-Japanese rallies last year. As soon as it became clear that they were powerful and out of state control, they were arrested."

Now the question I need to ask is that did these protests break any of the laws I listed above? If they did, then as the leaders of the protests, they have to bear the legal consequences.

"Even though they were fighting for the rights of the Chinese people, "

Exactly what rights of the Chinese people were they fighting for? Weren't they protesting against Japan's application to become a UNSC member, some Japanese textbooks that gloss over the rape of Nanjing, and the Japanese PM's visits to the Yasukuni shrine? Which one of these concerns the Chinese people's rights?

" and were not a political movement."

Of course it was, it just wasn't directed at the Chinese government.

"This was unconstitutional. Chinese have the legal right to protest"

Arresting the leaders of the protesters that vandalized Japanese consulate and businesses is unconstitutional?

"You're definition of political is different form mine. Are you saying that religious freedom is wrong?"

What exactly is your definition of "political"? I support religous freedom 100%. But isn't calling for the overthrown of a government a bit "political"?

"You are a foreigner, you read the words, but do not understand them."

I was born, raised and educated in China, how am I not understanding the literature written in my first language?

"FLG does permit the use of medicine for 'traditional' illnesses, like flu. But it espouses that people should not rely on drugs to make them well, and instead should avoid illness by living a healthy lifestyle (both mentally and physically). This is the core of FLG."

Really? So all the supernatural powers you will get for practising FLG is just the ice on the cake? And FLG is saying no more than "living a upright life and exercise lots"? People get so devoted to FLG just because it promotes the idea which their parents and school teachers have been telling them all their lives? Oh, what other diseases are "traditional", is cancer also "traditional"?

"Once you get past the mysticism, and take things allegorically, rather than literally, it's actually quite practical. Look after your mind and body, and you won't get sick."

Surely you are not telling me that the mysticism promoted by FLG did not play a single part in FLG's war against the Chinese government? Because as you said, without the the mysticism, FLG is just about looking after your mind and body. Surely this is just common sense as practical as it gets, but I find it hard to believe that 10s of thousands of people will actually go nuts about it.

"You should not look at this in a western context. Instead look at it in an Asian context. I will give you a transposed example. Do not think “following FLG will magically repel sickness”, instead think “Excesses weaken your body” or “if you don't drink, you won't get hung over”."

By now you should've already realized that I'm not looking at this in a western context. I'm pretty familiar with the Chinese buddism and Daoism concepts. I have close family members who majored in Chinese literature in a Chinese university, I read the four major classical fictions even before I started high school. I also have a close family member who practised Qigong after a major surgery (it didn't help). So I guess I know what I'm talking about when it comes to something that claims to root in Chinese mysticisms.

"This thinking is traditionally Chinese and has existed for thousands of years. The government is communist, which is a foreign idea, and it has existed for only 50 years. Which is better for China?"

FLG's doctrines are a mixture of Chinese buddism, Daoism and Qigong terminologies. As far as theologies go, it offers nothing new. I don't know what "traditionally Chinese thinking" you are talking about here.

Surely you already know that the current Chinese government is not communist but just a dictatorship? The current Chinese government is just another turn of the wheel of the Chinese dynasties, therefore it's just a new form of something that's existed for the past 2000+ years.

"Has it been proven, by independent scientific studies, that he doesn't?"

Haha, that's a good one. Surely, the onus is on him to prove his supernatural abilities, especially given the facts that

(1) He's living in North America where he cannot be persecuted by the Chinese government and any demonstration of his supernatural abilities will not be ignored or used against him.

(2) His religion and followers are being persecuted by an evil Chinese government and he hasn't performed any miracles to improve this situation.

(3) Surely with the speed to catch up to and surpas the expansion of the univerise and the ability to stop the final disintegration which "would make everything in the surface dimension cease to exist", Master Li can deal with the little problem of the CCP which is causing the maximum suffereing of his most devoted believers in a country on the tiny planet of earth?

For more absurd claims by Master Li, please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_and_controversies_about_Falun_Gong#C laims_about_preventing_catastrophes_and_cosmic_explosions

8. ACB left...

This is getting too much.

“Do you think in the case of FLG, the Chinese government has been telling different things to its citizens and foreigners?”

I have lived in the west and heard for myself what is said. Simply put. In China Beijing promotes FLG as being a superstition out to destroy Chinese society and its followers as crazy people who will harm everybody. In the west, they are promoted as being self harming and deluded. There is far less about their protest and their agenda for change.

“do you think the Chinese people would've been naive enough to believe what Beijing was telling them when the reality had been completely different?”

Who is there to tell them any different? The government has the monopoly on the media, and most pro-FLG sites on the web are blocked. If you only hear one side of the story, how are you to know that it isn't true.

“ I'm a native speaker of Mandarin”

Congratulations on you're English.

“to me, “破坏” in this context means to "disrupt"”

Please give me some credit. I am not some ignorant Chinese-American. 破 means 'to destroy' it indicates a permanent state of destruction.

If the constitution had meant a temporary disturbance, it would have said 打乱, using 乱 to indicate that it meant the event to be disorderly. Or 动荡, using 动 to indicate that it was transitional. No, it is quite clear that 破坏 means the destruction of the social order. As in a social coup or the bringing of anarchy.

“the constitution also says that "任何人不得利用宗教进行破坏社会秩序".....

We're back to the issue of disrupt V destroy again here, plus a lot of other complicated issues.

If I were reading the Chinese constitution in the same way that the US or Japanese constitutions are interpreted, then I would have no choice but to say that Beijing had to allow these demonstrations under the constitution and, that so long as they remained peaceful, they had no right to refuse a permit for them to go ahead.

However, as we all know, China isn't the US or Japan.

“Really? I don't believe I've heard of a protest against governments of the same scale as the FLG ones”

One reason for this is that most countries have smaller populations than China, and more human rights.

There are a great many protests in the west where secular groups protest on faith issues, and faith groups protest on secular issues, and both protest together.

For example, the anti-gay marriage protests in the US had thousands of both religious and non religious groups. As do anti-abortion protests. It is kind of hard to tell who was who.

There were some

There were many thousands of Muslims protesting in Europe over the cartoons of the prophet. Do you count those?

What about Christian groups who gather in support of the US republican party?

Did you happen to see several tens of thousands of people protesting in Hong Kong not so long ago?

“Now the question I need to ask is that did these protests break any of the laws I listed above? If they did, then as the leaders of the protests, they have to bear the legal consequences.”

Legally, they had no permit to hold their event, however constitutionally Beijing had no right to refuse them a permit. It's a no win situation.

“Which one of these concerns the Chinese people's rights?

The right to dignity, the right to compensation, the right for an apology.

In 1972, Japan signed a legally binding document promising to atone for the war, it is also a right of the Chinese people that this be upheld.

“Arresting the leaders of the protesters that vandalized Japanese consulate and businesses is unconstitutional?”

The ones who were arrested were not arrested in connection with the consulate. They were arrested for organizing other protests.

“I was born, raised and educated in China, how am I not understanding the literature written in my first language?”

You commented in good English and quoted the English language version of wikipedia. Neither of which lead me to believe that you were Chinese.

This page is also banned in China, and you sound like a foreigner.

“So all the supernatural powers you will get for practising FLG is just the ice on the cake?”

Most of it isn't supernatural, it's just a flowery way of saying clean living and meditation does you good, which wraps everything up in semi-religious jargon. It's not much more than what is said in Buddhism.

“I find it hard to believe that 10s of thousands of people will actually go nuts about it.”

They had a charismatic leader. This is what Beijing was afraid of.

“Surely you already know that the current Chinese government is not communist but just a dictatorship? The current Chinese government is just another turn of the wheel of the Chinese dynasties, therefore it's just a new form of something that's existed for the past 2000+ years.”

It's communism with Chinese characteristics. Even putting a foreign name to something Chinese is insulting.

“Surely, the onus is on him to prove his supernatural abilities“

No, it's on independent people. Any proof must be unbiased. He is clearly bias.

“For more absurd claims by Master Li.....”

Have you ever actually sat down and read a book from one of the world's main faiths. If you don't follow in them, they often sound strange unbelievable like FLG.

For example, Islam, one of the largest faiths in human history, believes that their leader could see into the future. Buddhists believe that you return from the dead in a new form. Jewish people won't eat oysters if there is an R in the month. Christians believe that words spoken to bring a man back from the dead were caught from the air and worked into the clay of a pot that was being turned. Scientologists believe that we were all were created by aliens, and that films like Starwars are actually memories given to us by aliens.

Yet Millions upon millions upon millions of people have fought and died for the right to hold these beliefs. Don't dismiss 'strange' religions so readily.

9. VISITOR left...

"This is getting too much."

How much is too much? ;-)

"In China Beijing promotes FLG as being a superstition out to destroy Chinese society and its followers as crazy people who will harm everybody. In the west, they are promoted as being self harming and deluded. There is far less about their protest and their agenda for change."

I'm afraid this description does not sound very convincing. Exactly how is the FLG described by Beijing as a superstition out to destroy the Chinese society? What exactly have been described as part of the destruction attempts? Are crazy people not self harming and decluded? You also have to remember that Beijing is presenting the same information to different audiences, you cannot expect the forms of the presentations to be exactly the same, can you?

"Who is there to tell them any different? The government has the monopoly on the media, and most pro-FLG sites on the web are blocked. If you only hear one side of the story, how are you to know that it isn't true."

Surely you realize that the Chinese people are allowed to set foot outside their homes and talk to each other in public and in private? The government has the monopoly on the media, but given the fact that FLG claims to have 10s of millions of devoted followers who just live among other people, you cannot possibly believe that the Chinese government is in control of every single channel of communication? Are you saying that as long as the Chinese government decides to put a lid on it, even something as big as FLG protests can be hushed?

"Please give me some credit. I am not some ignorant Chinese-American. 破 means 'to destroy' it indicates a permanent state of destruction."

I will give you credit where it's due. In this case you are flat out wrong. "破" does not mean "to destroy" and it does not indicate a permanent state of destruction. For example, in the sentence "我把花瓶打破了." "破" simply means "to break", can you restore a broken vase? How about in "共党把裹脚传统打破了." It means "the communist party stopped the tradition of putting cloth tightly around women's feet", and "破" just means "to stop", or "to interrupt", can this tradition be restored? Sure! In the sentence "In general, "破" just means "to break". In the sentene "我的房顶破了", "破" just means "damanged", can it be restored? Sure! If I wanted to express unrestorable destruction, I would use the term "摧毁".

"If the constitution had meant a temporary disturbance, it would have said 打乱, using 乱 to indicate that it meant the event to be disorderly. Or 动荡, using 动 to indicate that it was transitional. No, it is quite clear that 破坏 means the destruction of the social order. As in a social coup or the bringing of anarchy."

Let me just remind you, for the second time, that the direct object of the verb "破坏" is "社会秩序". The term "社会秩序" means not just "social order" or the "order of the society", but also implies the daily routines and functions of society. Within this context, any disturbance is temporary. How do you cause permanent destruction to 社会秩序? Drop enough nukes to make sure there aren't enough people to form a "社会"?

You cannot use the term "打乱" in this context either, it's just not grammatical. "打乱" can take "格局" as its direct object, but not "社会秩序". You cannot use "动荡" either, because it is an intransitive verb and it does not describe an action, it only describes a state. You can say "使社会动荡" but not "动荡社会" when "动荡" is a verb.

You also cannot always presume that the meaning of a multi-character Chinese word is the sum of the meanings of its characters -- which was how you assumed the character "动" was used in "动荡". "动" just means "to move" which implies "unstable" or "instability". In "动荡", "动" just means "unstable" and "荡" means exactly the same thing. This linguistic phenomenon is very common in Chinese, other examples include "要求" and "竞争".

To summarize all the linguistic arguments, in the context of the constitution, "破坏" just means "to disrupt".

"If I were reading the Chinese constitution in the same way that the US or Japanese constitutions are interpreted, then I would have no choice but to say that Beijing had to allow these demonstrations under the constitution and, that so long as they remained peaceful, they had no right to refuse a permit for them to go ahead."

Sure, but did they actually apply for a permit? Were these protests peaceful, did they violate any of the "protest" laws?

"However, as we all know, China isn't the US or Japan."

Sky is blue, water is wet.

"One reason for this is that most countries have smaller populations than China, and more human rights."

Well that's it, isn't it? It's always the government's fault. The citizens can do nothing wrong.

"There are a great many protests in the west where secular groups protest on faith issues, and faith groups protest on secular issues, and both protest together."

What faith issues or secular issues? Are these the same issues as what the FLG protesters had when they went on a spree of big protests in 1999? I find it hard to pin your argument down without knowing exactly what the FLG protested about in 1999.

"What about Christian groups who gather in support of the US republican party?"

You call that a protest?

"Did you happen to see several tens of thousands of people protesting in Hong Kong not so long ago?"

Were these people protesting about some religious issues or the agricultural taxes? Did you happen to see the legions of cops clashing with the protesters and arresting them? What was that all about?

"The ones who were arrested were not arrested in connection with the consulate. They were arrested for organizing other protests."

Are you telling me that these protests for which the protest leaders were arrested had absolutely no relationship with the vandalising of the Japanese consulate and Japanese businesses? I find that hard to believe.

"You commented in good English and quoted the English language version of wikipedia. Neither of which lead me to believe that you were Chinese."

I also quoted the Chinese version of the PRC constitution from my very first post.

"This page is also banned in China, and you sound like a foreigner."

What exactly does a foreigner sound like? You didn't know there were overseas Chinese? Haven't you heard of remote/virtual desktops?

"Most of it isn't supernatural, it's just a flowery way of saying clean living and meditation does you good, which wraps everything up in semi-religious jargon. It's not much more than what is said in Buddhism."

Look, when you start arguing about the teachings of a religion, you have to quote either its written texts or the speech made by important figures of the religion. You cannot just tell me what you thought of it. Given that your command of Chinese is not as solid as native speakers, I find it difficult to take your interpretation for granted. You might also be describing the English version of the written text, but as meanings can get lost in translations -- either on purpose or by accident, I prefer the original Chinese versions.

Oh, did you also say "most of it isn't supernatural"? So does that imply some of it is supernatural? Now, how much is "most of"? How much of the FLG teachings are to do with supernatural powers? How important is the role played by the supernatural powers?

Do you think a religion can still exist without any supernatural aspects? Do you think there would still be Christians if the bible clearly said there was no God? Do you think people would still fear God if God was just a human?

"They had a charismatic leader. This is what Beijing was afraid of."

Mao was a charismatic leader, he started from being a peasant and ended up being the supreme leader of China after countless struggles. Bill Clinton was a charismatic leader, every single one of his speeches I've seen were very convincing and well delivered. Dalai Lama is probably also a charismatic leader, at least he plays his apearance card really well and gets oral support from the politicians of pretty much every country he visits. Jesus had probably been a charismatic leader if he had actually existed. The prophet Mohammed was probably a charismatic leader as he started the religion of Islam in rather difficult conditions.

Master Li of FLG is not a charismatic leader, he's nothing more than a fraud and coward. He's been in hiding ever since the beginning of the crackdown and only preached to and operated via those alread converted. He's made no public speech in any political or broad religious forums. He lives in America, but has never even bothered to publicly make the case for his religion in the main stream media. He's made no personal sacrifices but he's made lots of money. No, Master Li is not a charismatic leader -- he could have been a reasonable used car salesman, but a leader? I doubt it.

"It's communism with Chinese characteristics."

What exactly are Chinese characteristics? Are fake guns also guns? If call the tail of a dog "leg", how many legs does a normal dog have?

"Even putting a foreign name to something Chinese is insulting."

What are you talking about?

"No, it's on independent people. Any proof must be unbiased. He is clearly bias."

Are you saying the onus is on independent people to prove Master Li's supernatural powers? Exactly how do I prove that someone has super powers? Do I ambush them and put them in life-threatening situations? Do I ask them to cure cancer and AIDS? What if this "someone' does not display any supernatural powers at all? How do I know whether they actually don't have any, or they just don't wanna show it to me?

Surely what you meant was that it's on independent people to *JUDGE* whether Master Li has any supernatural powers. And in order for the judging to take place, Master Li first has to offer to demonstrate his powers. Has he done so under any circumstance when some independent observers were available?

"Have you ever actually sat down and read a book from one of the world's main faiths. If you don't follow in them, they often sound strange unbelievable like FLG."

Yes, I've read the bible myself, I let Jehovah's Witnesses in my house once every week for a few months. Some of my best friends are very devoted SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTs. My physio who's a protestant had a very long discussion with me about God during one of the sessions. As an atheist, I understand why people follow religions. In the context of Christianity, given the assumption that God exists, the theology offered in the bible is very reasonable.

What makes FLG a joke is that its ultimate leader -- Master Li is just an average guy. He claims to have supernatural powers but has never ever demonstrated it, but for some reason some people choose to believe him. This just goes beyond any rationality.

"For example, Islam, one of the largest faiths in human history, believes that their leader could see into the future. Buddhists believe that you return from the dead in a new form. Jewish people won't eat oysters if there is an R in the month. Christians believe that words spoken to bring a man back from the dead were caught from the air and worked into the clay of a pot that was being turned. Scientologists believe that we were all were created by aliens, and that films like Starwars are actually memories given to us by aliens."

Surely you can see the MOST OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE between FLG and all the religions you listed above? For all the main stream religions (including Scientology), you cannot reach the gods or the creators for verification, therefore you cannot prove or disapprove their existence. But for FLG, the "God" himself is just an average Chinese guy. How can you believe that he's still the god when he's no different from you?

"Yet Millions upon millions upon millions of people have fought and died for the right to hold these beliefs. Don't dismiss 'strange' religions so readily."

Well what can I say? People are stupid. People are the only animals on this planet that would die for what they believe in their heads. I can understand when people want to believe in things that cannot possibly be disproven, but to believe in something that's clearly a fraud is just shear stupidity. Oh, since when is truth determined by the number of people that believe it?

10. ACB left...

If you want to get answers to your postings, I suggest that you pick a key area and keep it short and to the point. No rambling. I don't appreciate time wasters.

“Exactly how is the FLG described by Beijing as a superstition out to destroy the Chinese society?” You can read Chinese, read a Mainland newspaper. Don't take my word for it.

“Are crazy people not self harming and decluded?”

No, some of them just think that giant lizards rule the world in secret.

“You also have to remember that Beijing is presenting the same information to different audiences”

Actually, it presents different information to different audiences. Remember that FLG man who Beijing said burned himself to death as a protest, who wasn't actually an FLG man? Or those murders that weren't related to FLG at all?

People in the west think differently, if Beijing told them the same things, they would not accept them so readily.

"Surely you realize that the Chinese people are allowed to set foot outside their homes and talk to each other in public and in private?”

When you only know one side of the story, you can only talk about one side of the story. You might be able to question the state line, but if you don't know the other factors, you simply can't talk about them.

“Are you saying that as long as the Chinese government decides to put a lid on it, even something as big as FLG protests can be hushed?“

Beijing isn't covering them up. It's using them as a sign that FLG want to destroy society.

"破" does not mean "to destroy"....... We'll have to agree to disagree. I think that you've been living overseas too long.

“You also cannot always presume that the meaning of a multi-character Chinese word is the sum of the meanings of its characters”

When in doubt about the meaning of a double character word, it remains a good tool. Even if it is not correct all of the time.

To summarize all the linguistic arguments, in the context of the constitution, "破坏" just means "to disrupt".

I looked in three English-Chinese dictionaries written. All of them translated this literally to mean “Destroy”. So it is not just me.

"Sure, but did they actually apply for a permit? Were these protests peaceful, did they violate any of the "protest" laws?

You're being purposefully silly. “The fight started when he hit me back” would be a good analogy.

“Sky is blue, water is wet.”

Are you daring to even imply that “What's good for America, is good for China” because if you are, then I find it difficult to believe that you're Mainland.

“Well that's it, isn't it? It's always the government's fault. The citizens can do nothing wrong.”

Read the sentence again. Religions in the west don't need to protest on the same issues as FLG, because they already have most of what FLG wants.

Why protest for a right that you already have?

“What faith issues or secular issues?”

Gay marriage Abortion The secularization of the state Condom use State funding for abortion/contraception overseas Morality and family values

Try reading the ACLU news sheet. It will give you some ideas.

“Are these the same issues as what the FLG protesters had when they went on a spree of big protests in 1999?”

As I said, why protest for what you already have.

“I find it hard to pin your argument down without knowing exactly what the FLG protested about in 1999”

Google it

“You call that a protest?“

It was under the Clinton (Democrat)administration, yes.

“Were these people protesting about some religious issues or the agricultural taxes? Did you happen to see the legions of cops clashing with the protesters and arresting them? What was that all about?”

You're being deliberately stupid again. They wanted the throwing out of a security bill that would have enforced Mainland style restrictions on Hong Kong residents, and to have direct elections as was promised them as part of the handover agreement.

“Are you telling me that these protests for which the protest leaders were arrested had absolutely no relationship with the vandalising of the Japanese consulate and Japanese businesses?”

Beijing didn't charge them for it.

“What exactly does a foreigner sound like?”

Foreigners ask too many silly questions, and don't give enough answers. Just like you.

“You didn't know there were overseas Chinese?”

I know that being Overseas Chinese isn't the same thing as being Mainland Chinese.

“Haven't you heard of remote/virtual desktops?”

I have my own remote desktop system right here. What does it have to do with anything.

“when you start arguing about the teachings of a religion, you have to quote either its written texts or the speech made by important figures of the religion.”

Not when you are trying to convince somebody to look beyond the writing.

“So does that imply some of it is supernatural? Now, how much is "most of"?

Well, duh. It's a religion.

“How much of the FLG teachings are to do with supernatural powers?”

About the same amount as in Buddhism and meditation practices.

In japan it is called ki, In China it is called qi In India it is called chakra In the west it is called vitality

Call it what you want. FLG raises it through a mixture of healthy eating, regular physical exercise, and meditation. It won't let you walk through walls or see into the future, but it will provide you with a daily routine that will keep you fit and healthy.

You don't call your grandmother mentally unsound for being a Buddhist and you don't call her a sorceress for believing that practicing Tai-Chi in the morning will keep arthritis and flu at bay. Unless of course you have been living among foreigners for too long.

“Do you think a religion can still exist without any supernatural aspects?”

The Scientologist believe don't believe in the supernatural. They believe that aliens created the world.

“Do you think there would still be Christians if the bible clearly said there was no God?”

I don't think that it would be he Bible if it said that.

“Master Li of FLG is not a charismatic leader, he's nothing more than a fraud and coward.”

People are willing to preach in his name and to die for him. For that you either need charisma, or to invoke great fear. And I don't think that people are afraid of him.

“He's been in hiding ever since the beginning of the crackdown”

Beijing wants him silenced. He has good reason to hide.

“and only preached to and operated via those alread converted.”

Maintenance before conversion. It is the same with many religions.

“He lives in America, but has never even bothered to publicly make the case for his religion in the main stream media.”

If he is so ineffectual, why is Beijing afraid of him?

“He's made no personal sacrifices but he's made lots of money.”

As you said yourself, he is living in America. This is called going into exile.

“he could have been a reasonable used car salesman, but a leader? I doubt it.”

So, why are all of these people following him?

“What exactly are Chinese characteristics?”

Loosely, it means that some ideas are good, but not completely suitable for the Chinese people in their original form.

For example, China never collectivized its farms like Rusia did, because Mao didn't believe that this was best for the people. Instead, he allowed farmers to individually farm state controlled land.

“Are fake guns also guns?”

For the purposes of gun control laws, no. For the purpose of criminal intent, yes. (You don't need a permit to own a fake gun, but if you commit a crime with it you will suffer the same legal penalties as if you'd used a real gun).

“If call the tail of a dog "leg", how many legs does a normal dog have?”

It will have 4 legs, plus one leg.

“What are you talking about?”

Something isn't Chinese just because you give it a Chinese name.

“Are you saying the onus is on independent people to prove Master Li's supernatural powers?”

Yes. This means that whoever conducts the experiments can't be accused of faking the result for/against him. It is standard practice in the west.

“Exactly how do I prove that someone has super powers? Do I ambush them and put them in life-threatening situations?”

No, that would be unscientific. You put them in a laboratory, under controlled circumstances, and you conduct a series of experiments. There are already a number of respectable institutions in the West who do this to prove or disprove people who claim to be able to read minds, or to be able to predict the future.

“What if this "someone' does not display any supernatural powers at all? How do I know whether they actually don't have any, or they just don't wanna show it to me?”

Naturally, you ask them to show you their powers, and if they don't want to/can't you pronounce that you were unable to prove that they existed. If they agree and show you, you announce that they do exist. You don't need to prove that they don't exist.

“Has he done so under any circumstance when some independent observers were available?”

Don't ask me.

“I let Jehovah's Witnesses in my house once every week for a few months. Some of my best friends are very devoted SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTs. My physio who's a protestant had a very long discussion with me about God during one of the sessions.”

I've never met a Chinese Jehovah's Witnesses. Or a PSB who would allow them to go door to door.

“For all the main stream religions (including Scientology), you cannot reach the gods or the creators for verification, therefore you cannot prove or disapprove their existence.”

Hubbard, the creator of Scientology, died in 1986. Until that time you could call him up on the telephone and talk to him. You're 20 years too late. But it was once possible.

Besides, Li never claimed to have be, at least not in the western sense.

“just an average Chinese guy. How can you believe that he's still the god when he's no different from you?”

Buddha was human too. Do you not believe in Buddha?

“but to believe in something that's clearly a fraud is just shear stupidity.”

What makes it any more or less wrong than any other religion?

“since when is truth determined by the number of people that believe it?”

Truth V the perception of truth?

I strongly recomend that you pick one point relevent to the original post, and stick with it.

11. The Humanaught left...

Wow guys, clash of the titans. I started the thread with just a load of points to make, but to be honest I'm just too tired now to say anything but thanks for the excellent debate.

You both deserve credit for being direct and pointful with your remarks. In the end, I think we all have to admit that the complexity of the issue is the reason two well-educated people can argue with such passion over it.

@ACB: Excellent way to stir up some debate with this topic. @Visitor: Thanks for taking the time and adding a depth to this post that otherwise it would have lacked. @Both: That was a great way for me to kill a good 1/2 hour.

BTW ACB, your blog isn't blocked per se. Blog-city's domain is blocked, as are many blogging services in China (Blogger's Blogspot as included). I doubt many English-language sites (aside from the most notable ones - Amnesty, etc.) would be blocked on a site-by-site basis.

12. The Angry Chinese Blogger left...

Yeah, I know.

When I said my site was blocked, I should really have said that my service provider was blocked.

All blog city blogs are blocked in China, not just mine, and not because of me.

Blog city gave unrestricted access to Chinese language bloggers, for free, and hosted a couple of very controversial blogs, including An-Ti.

13. guest left...

Yes, I would also like to thank you both for a rousing discussion. At the risk of being anticlimatic I thought I would add a comment from the pure waiguoren point of view.

First, let me say that I am not very familiar with the FLG religion but we do have a local group (University town in USA). They have a local network show in which they show meditation and exercise techniques, they march in parades, hold bake sales, etc. Well, let's just say, they are about as scary as my grandmother.

Having said that, being able to put 10,000 people in the street across from the CCP headquarters in Beijing, peacefully protesting or not, might look pretty scary to the CCP members whether it is "constitutional" or not. To me this is the important point and "to disrupt" or "to destroy" is just parsing degree. A degree, which I am afraid at this time, is whatever the CCP says it is. The FLG are perceived as a real threat to the CCP (as good Chinese historians will know that qigong movements have lead to revolution before). For that matter any mass movement outside the CCP in China is going to be suppressed no matter what the Chinese constitution says (just look at the Christian community both Catholic and Protestant outside the sanctioned outlets (read controlled by the CCP) . Good Lord, they are even afraid of the Supergirl phenomenon -- beware cellphone democracy!