Dear Editor of the Washington Post: It is chilling to imagine, much more to visualize, people in fire. With due respects to their families, we must point out that the victims' actions were deeply misguided. However, your report left us perplexed (Pan, 2-3-2000, "Human Fire Ignites Chinese Mystery," Washington Post, p.A01) as to why they did it. It seems that it is suggesting either that Liu and the group were/are not associated with Falungong, or that if they were they acted out of defense of their beliefs with full foreknowledge of the outcome of such actions. To the first question, we must refer to the statement, quoted in the same article, by Lu Siqing's Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy. He clearly identified all, except the 12-year-old, were repeated protesters at the Tianan Men Square. In common sense, the chance is extremely small for Liu Chunling, the one who perished in fire, not to be a Falungong disciple while setting herself and her child on fire at the same time and the same spot with other proven disciples. This membership issue can be easily settled with simple logic and basic understanding of probability. The second point is that we do not believe they anticipated the disastrous consequences as normal people do in similar behaviors--we know that fire burns. However, as encouraged by the Master, Li Hongzhi, those coming out to "validate the Dafa (Grand Law)" and suffered the consequences are true disciples, a term he favors upon his followers over that pretentious "student." Part of Li's teaching includes an assurance that He or his "Dharma Body" would come to the true disciples' rescue, through miracles of some sort, if and only if they are truly devoted. At this moment, the truly devoted are those who are able to validate Li's Dafa. If Liu and the company believed in Li, they would have all faith in this miraculous path toward consummation. That is to say, what they did, to them, was not against Li's teaching. In fact, one of Falungong Official Website Minghui's prized article is titled "Sacrificing Life to Defend Fa (Law)," retelling the 5-month pregnant author's bravery (or foolhardiness and negligence of her potential child) in risking her life for Li (http://www.minghui.ca/mh/articles/2001/1/5/6469.html). It does not take a quantum leap for disciples like Liu to imitate this type of stories to the extreme. When the article draws on the historical comparison, it introduces more confusions. Comparisons are based on categorical similarities as defined in the discussion. As we have argued above, these five victims were not intending to kill themselves, but to "consummate" through miracles by proving their devotion. By omitting this most likely motivations of the victims in this case, the article leaves readers to believe that such activities are purely politically motivated for the noble defense of the freedom of beliefs. However, to sacrifice, one must give up something most valuable for the benefit of others, not treating it as an investment for themselves. As encouraged by Li, to become "gods" through sacrificing the earthly lives is no loss at all in some of the distraught followers' calculation, Li's clever defense by "thou shall not test God" notwithstanding. For one to compare the victims with the two historical events mentioned by you, one has to know if the late Ming Dynasty people or the Qing Dynasty constitutionalists (or that of the Buddhist Monks in Vietnam protesting the Catholic Diem's massacre of Buddhists) had shared beliefs with Falungong disciples. Does protesting against "foreign" invasion (of the Manchus), fighting to constitutionalize a monarchy, or acting against the US-supported Diem in his systematic killing of Buddhists equate to "consummation" in the Falun Paradise? Another confusion in the article is related to the selection of sources. It seems that the source of knowledge as to the disciple status of Liu was based on one anecdote, far from being exhaustive. And by following Li's own rule to recognize or reject membership as "disciples" the description of Liu suggests that she was simply a strayed and unkind person, or even a social "outcast," thus unfit to be a member of the Falungong. It is a mistaken "perfection" image of a disciple collaborating Li's tortured logic: whoever fails to be a disciple is not a disciple, while there is "no formal registration" of membership so whoever wants to be. Besides, how many persons had Pan surveyed to conclude "None ever saw her practice Falun Gong" to imply the victim was not a disciple of Falungong? No wonder Minghui, the Fulungong's official Web site, cheers at this report, immediately translated (or rather re-edited) it into Chinese, with deliberate omissions and mistranslations (see the enclosure). Your report is prized as "Washington Post Made Historical Testimonial: Self-immolation Fire Enlightens the Dirty Secret in China: Motive for Public Burning is to Intensify the fight against Falun Gong" (http://www.minghui.org/mh/articles/2001/2/5/7711.html). It is painful that this article mentioned nothing about child protection, a touchstone issue of civilized society and human rights. The fundamental issue is: based on what a protest out of faith should involve the life and livelihood of a 12-year-old? To our surprise, the "human rights" activists, such as Lu Siqing, defending the right of Falungong as a "spiritual movement" pretend that this is a non-issue. Or is there an assumption that a child should do whatever the parent commands, as some religious fundamentalists insist? Or are their rights assumed away for the sake of "freedom of belief"? We have to wonder: to whose human rights they are committed? Overall, we are saddened by this event and disappointed with your report. We suggest that your paper should have researched the latest doctrinal development of Falungong, in particular, a war-cry in "Tolerate No More" (The Minghui's translation of "Beyond Tolerance" makes a mockery of the title of Nietzsche's famous work) of January 1, 2001, by Li Hongzhi. Reading it again and again, as urged by an earnest disciple, may help us to understand what Falungong is. Regards, Shi-min Fang President of New Threads Chinese Cultural Society, Inc. (http://www.xys.org) P.O. Box 26194 San Diego, CA 92196-0194 Zixian Deng Graduate Student of Department of Political Science University of North Texas Denton, TX 76203 Enclosure: Some examples of Minghui's deliberate mistranslation: The title "Human Fire Ignites Chinese Mystery: Motive for Public Burning Intensifies Fight Over Falun Gong" was translated as: "Washintong Post Made Historical Testimonial: Self-immolation Fire Enlightens the Dirty Secret in China: Motive for Public Burning is to Intensify the fight against Falun Gong" ------------- "But no one suspected that Liu, 36, might have joined the banned spiritual movement Falun Gong." was translated as: "But no one THINKS that Liu..." ------------- "An intense battle is underway to answer that question, with the five individuals cast in turn as victims of an evil cult, righteous protesters against a repressive government or desperately estranged people on the margins of a fast-changing society." was translated as: "..., with the five SELECTED individuals cast FOR CAMERA in turn, ..." ----------------- "which has resulted in thousands of arrests and as many as 105 deaths in police custody. " was translated as: "... 105 were CRUELLY KILLED in police custody." ----------------- "In any case, he said, the crackdown on Falun Gong was sure to backfire." was translated as: "...the crackdown on Falun Gong was sure to BE REHABILITATED."