Ack, in the midst of procrastinating two papers, both of which I have open on my computer. I was hoping someone happened to be a Falun gong expert but I guess we're all in the same boat here. That is, however, telling in its own way. Regardless of whatever opinions we might hold about their persecution, a lot of us (a lot of us being, like, three people) don't seem to have a clear idea of even why they're being persecuted in the first place.

For the moment I want to leave organ harvesting out of the discussion, because when we start talking about human atrocities there's no end to it. I remember we had a particularly heated and unconstructive seminar on it once over TASP, actually. What I do propose provisionally now, is that human rights are universal constructs, which anyone will agree to as good ideas when external contexts are ignored. No sane person is about to claim that killing people is good in itself, and although some will claim it an inevitable necessity in many cases, they will do so with the belief that it ought to be avoided when it can.

So when individual rights are being infringed, it must begin with some call for necessity, whether this call is proportional to the threat or not. Something's got to be in it for the majority, or the supposed public good or at least the public order. Who benefits, or at least feels more secure, from even the imprisonment of the members of a religion and/or cult? Does the distinction between religion and cult actually have to do with whether or not it potentially threatens the established social order? Does a cult promise a revolution?

Going back to Bryan's point, about how the early churches shouldn't have had any validity as religion if the the validity of a religion is independent of how long it's been around - maybe the early churches were regarded as cults. If we think of the the Roman persecution of the early Christians, it doesn't seem too distant a reaction from, say, the mass purgings of the Catholics in Japan, Korea, and China during the 18th and 19th centuries. Moreover, at least the Romans had a 'cult leader' to point at. Is 'religion' a compromise between 'cult' and the socially acceptable? And if so, is it ultimately up to the holders of political power to dole out these labels?

Right, back to paper writing.
Jacob, if you're reading this from a New Haven computer, call 203.606.6685.

posted by Tae-Yeoun Keum   [5:20 PM]

[ website ] :: [ contact ] :: [ home ]

XML