【新唐人2014年06月17日讯】日前，大陆媒体一篇名为《为什么说民运也是一种邪教》的评论文章，把公共知识份子和所谓“死磕派”律师、民运人士都归为“邪教份子”，而招到舆论巨大批评。很多声音指出，文中提到的诸多邪教具有的特征以及价值观念，恰恰就是在说中共本身。
6月11号，中共喉舌刊物《求是》下属的《求是理论网》，转载了一篇名为《为什么说民运也是一种邪教》的评论文章，在网络传开后，招致了成片的骂声。
这篇署名文章，先是藉备受舆论关注的“山东招远杀人案”，指控大陆公知们“为邪教辩护”，进而将矛头对准民运组织，声称民运看似不同于邪教，但实际是一种“隐性的邪教”，是为了维护美国利益的“民主全能教”，更是“美国利益教”。
原北京大学法律系讲师王天成:“民运怎么追求美国利益，它能提出什么例子来吗？民运有很多人是被迫流亡美国，并不是为了维护美国的利益。大家都知道六四以后很多学生领袖、民运人士被迫流亡美国，因为中国待不下去，中共要抓他们。我们追求的是中国的自由民主，我们并不为美国政府服务，我们也不从美国那个地方拿钱，我们靠自己能力，我们自食其力。”
文章不但将公知、律师、民运人士与邪教份子、恐怖份子相提并论，统称为“反华乱华的政治力量”。并指控“邪教组织、恐怖组织、民运组织、分裂势力的背后都是美国”。对此，有评论指出，文章有意混淆“反华”与“反共”的概念，采用文革“扣大帽子”的手段，打击所有敢于对中共政权说“不”的群体，甚至利用民族情绪将矛盾指向美国，来试图掩盖中共因彻底丧失民心而导致的执政危机。
王天成：“我们民运是爱国的，我们不是反华，我们是反共。这个必须要区分开来，反共和反华是两回事，要爱国就要反共，因为共产党糟蹋中国。”
旅美中国社会问题研究人士张健：“我觉得它把所有在海外能对中共政权说不的组织，全部都罗列上了。比如说，我们在海外的一些宗教信仰组织，像法轮功，像我们少数民族兄弟的组织，还有一些中国民主党在海外的这些组织。它从最根本上来告诉大家，反共的人对中共说不的人，就是反华势力。它是无休止的来颠覆人们——中共和国家——这样一个本质上、概念上的区别。”
此外，文章还指出，大陆公知们所追求的并不是自由、民主和普世价值，而是从美国移植和引进的“价值观核心”，如: “人不为己天诛地灭”、“自私是推动社会进步的动力”等。 有评论反驳，这些“自私论”恰恰是中共一贯秉持的价值理念。
王天成：“人不为己天诛地灭，这个其实现在正是共产党统治集团的信条，它们非常的贪腐，它们不考虑国家长远的利益，拒绝接受文明的世界规则。大家都知道现在（中共）高层生活的腐化，家族财富的巨大，这正是它们自己。那么，一个政府就应该是追求公共利益的，但是它们没有这样做。”
张健：“美国是人权至上的国家。美国的宪法清楚的告诉大家，作为一个美国的人他有什么样的天赋人权、有什么样的言论自由，讲的非常清楚。所以这篇文章它彻底颠覆真正的美国价值观，它是抹黑美国、抹黑所有在美国的华人、抹黑所有追求民主自由的人，把追求民主自由的人打扮成就像邪教一样，但是恰恰全世界最大的邪教就是中国共产党。”
文章反复强调，民运分子表现出了鲜明的“邪教特征”，为了他们的所谓“民主教”传播，可以“鄙视一切道德，挑战任何底线，而且丝毫不会有愧疚感。”和“招远血案”中打死无辜女子的“全能教”教徒，杀人后仍然能说自己“不后悔”，如出一辙。
按照中共给“邪教”下的种种定义，很多民众发现，最符合“邪教”标准的，就是“中共”本身。
采访编辑/张天宇 后制/ 陈建铭
CCP State Media: Pro-Democracy Activities Are Cultish
A Chinese state media article defined the pro-democracy
movement as a cult and criticized liberal intellectuals,
the insistent lawyers, and democracy activists,
calling them heretics.
The article sparked public outcry.
Many believe the characteristics of a cult as explained in the
article best describe the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
On June 11, the online version of CCP mouthpiece
Qiushi Magazine, qstheory.cn, published
a commentary entitled, “Why The Pro-Democracy Movement
Is A Kind Of Cult."
The spread of this article online has lead
to much condemnation.
The author accused liberal intellectuals
as being defensive of their cult.
It further claimed that pro-democracy organizations
are actually the “hidden cult," the “democracy cult,"
or the “U.S. interests cult" – which safeguards
the interests of the United States.
Wang Tiancheng, former Peking University law lecturer:
“How is the pro-democracy movement pursuing US interests?
Are there any examples?
Many pro-democracy activists were forced to exile
to the U.S. but not to safeguard the interests of the U.S.
People know many student leaders and activists were forced
to leave China because the CCP was trying to catch them.
We are seeking freedom and democracy for China.
We do not serve the U.S. government.
We do not receive money from them either.
We are self-reliant."
The author of the article equated liberal intellectuals,
lawyers, and pro-democracy activists to cultish terrorists.
They were collectively referred to as anti-China
political forces causing chaos.
The article accuses the U.S. of backing the cult, terrorist
groups, activist organizations and the separatist forces.
Critics argue that the article intends to confuse
the concept of “anti-China" with “anti-communist."
It attacks people who dare say no to the CCP regime
using Cultural Revolution-style political labels.
It even directs national sentiment
to go against the United States.
The purpose is to cover up the CCP’s ruling crisis
caused by the loss of popular support.
Wang Tiancheng: “We are a patriotic democratic movement.
We are anti-communism, not anti-China.
This distinction must be made.
Opposing the CCP and opposing China are different matters.
It is an act of patriotism to oppose the CCP.
The CCP ruined China."
Zhang Jian, China’s social issues researcher: “I think it
includes all overseas organizations that dare say no to the CCP
regime, religious groups such as Falun Gong, minority ethnic
groups, and overseas Chinese Democratic Party organizations.
It basically says those who oppose the CCP
are anti-China forces.
It confuses people endlessly about the concepts of China
and the CCP, which are fundamentally different."
The article also claimed that what liberal intellectuals pursue
is not freedom, democracy or universal values.
Rather, according to the article, they are in pursuit
of the core values introduced by the U.S.
such as “everyone for himself" “devil take the hindmost,"
and “selfish power to promote social progress."
However, critics argue that the “selfish theory" is precisely
the values and ideals the CCP has consistently upheld.
Wang Tiancheng: “The ‘everyone for himself’
and ‘devil take the hindmost,’ is in fact the CCP creed.
The greedy, corrupt CCP has ignored the long-term interests
of the country, refusing to accept the civilized world’s rules.
It is well known how corrupt the CCP high officials are
and how wealthy their families are.
They have never done anything an ordinary government
should have done in pursuit of public interest."
Zhang Jian: “In the United States, human rights
are above all else.
The American Constitution clearly defines the God-given
human rights and freedom of speech.
This article subverts true American values.
It discredits Americans, the Chinese in America,
and all those who pursue democracy and freedom.
It addresses those who pursue democracy and freedom as
cult members, while the CCP is the biggest cult in the world."
The article repeatedly emphasizes that democracy activists
display distinctive “cult member characteristics."
To spread the so-called “democratic religion," activists
“despise all morals and challenge any bottom line
without a sense of guilt."
They behave like the cult members of the “Church of All
Mighty God" who showed no remorse after beating
an innocent woman to death.
According to the CCP’s various descriptions of cult-like
characteristics, many people find the CCP best fits the bill.
Interview & Edit/Zhang Tianyu Post-Production/Chen JianMing
