【新唐人2014年06月17日訊】日前，大陸媒體一篇名為《為甚麼說民運也是一種邪教》的評論文章，把公共知識份子和所謂「死磕派」律師、民運人士都歸為「邪教份子」，而招到輿論巨大批評。很多聲音指出，文中提到的諸多邪教具有的特徵以及價值觀念，恰恰就是在說中共本身。
6月11號，中共喉舌刊物《求是》下屬的《求是理論網》，轉載了一篇名為《為甚麼說民運也是一種邪教》的評論文章，在網絡傳開後，招致了成片的罵聲。
這篇署名文章，先是藉備受輿論關注的「山東招遠殺人案」，指控大陸公知們「為邪教辯護」，進而將矛頭對準民運組織，聲稱民運看似不同於邪教，但實際是一種「隱性的邪教」，是為了維護美國利益的「民主全能教」，更是「美國利益教」。
原北京大學法律系講師王天成:「民運怎麼追求美國利益，它能提出甚麼例子來嗎？民運有很多人是被迫流亡美國，並不是為了維護美國的利益。大家都知道六四以後很多學生領袖、民運人士被迫流亡美國，因為中國待不下去，中共要抓他們。我們追求的是中國的自由民主，我們並不為美國政府服務，我們也不從美國那個地方拿錢，我們靠自己能力，我們自食其力。」
文章不但將公知、律師、民運人士與邪教份子、恐怖份子相提並論，統稱為「反華亂華的政治力量」。並指控「邪教組織、恐怖組織、民運組織、分裂勢力的背後都是美國」。對此，有評論指出，文章有意混淆「反華」與「反共」的概念，採用文革「扣大帽子」的手段，打擊所有敢於對中共政權說「不」的群體，甚至利用民族情緒將矛盾指向美國，來試圖掩蓋中共因徹底喪失民心而導致的執政危機。
王天成：「我們民運是愛國的，我們不是反華，我們是反共。這個必須要區分開來，反共和反華是兩回事，要愛國就要反共，因為共產黨糟蹋中國。」
旅美中國社會問題研究人士張健：「我覺得它把所有在海外能對中共政權說不的組織，全部都羅列上了。比如說，我們在海外的一些宗教信仰組織，像法輪功，像我們少數民族兄弟的組織，還有一些中國民主黨在海外的這些組織。它從最根本上來告訴大家，反共的人對中共說不的人，就是反華勢力。它是無休止的來顛覆人們——中共和國家——這樣一個本質上、概念上的區別。」
此外，文章還指出，大陸公知們所追求的並不是自由、民主和普世價值，而是從美國移植和引進的「價值觀核心」，如: 「人不為己天誅地滅」、「自私是推動社會進步的動力」等。 有評論反駁，這些「自私論」恰恰是中共一貫秉持的價值理念。
王天成：「人不為己天誅地滅，這個其實現在正是共產黨統治集團的信條，它們非常的貪腐，它們不考慮國家長遠的利益，拒絕接受文明的世界規則。大家都知道現在（中共）高層生活的腐化，家族財富的巨大，這正是它們自己。那麼，一個政府就應該是追求公共利益的，但是它們沒有這樣做。」
張健：「美國是人權至上的國家。美國的憲法清楚的告訴大家，作為一個美國的人他有甚麼樣的天賦人權、有甚麼樣的言論自由，講的非常清楚。所以這篇文章它徹底顛覆真正的美國價值觀，它是抹黑美國、抹黑所有在美國的華人、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樣，但是恰恰全世界最大的邪教就是中國共產黨。」
文章反覆強調，民運分子表現出了鮮明的「邪教特徵」，為了他們的所謂「民主教」傳播，可以「鄙視一切道德，挑戰任何底線，而且絲毫不會有愧疚感。」和「招遠血案」中打死無辜女子的「全能教」教徒，殺人後仍然能說自己「不後悔」，如出一轍。
按照中共給「邪教」下的種種定義，很多民眾發現，最符合「邪教」標準的，就是「中共」本身。
採訪編輯/張天宇 後製/ 陳建銘
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