Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:21, 9 August 2005

It has been suggested that Anti-cult movement be merged into this article. (Discuss)

Opposition to cults and new religious movements (NRMs) comes from several sources with diverse concerns: Opposition comes from family members of adherents, former members, psychiatrists, psychologists and sociologists, adherents from established religions, cult watchers and skeptics.

History

The modern era of opposition to cults and new religious movements started in the 1960s in the United States. One of the first organized anti-cult groups in the USA was FREECOG founded in 1971 by parents whose children were involved in the Children of God group. Opposition to NRMs grew after the mass suicide of the members of the Peoples Temple at Jonestown in 1978.

See Anti-cult movement and Christian countercult movement for a more detailed treatment of the history of these movements.

Taxonomies

Five types of cult watching groups by Eileen Barker

Cult watching groups (CWGs) disseminate information about purported cults with the intent of changing public and government perception of them and changing public policy regarding the NRMs. This can drastically affect the mindsets of NRM members and of society as a whole, as well as the actions the groups, the public and the government take, including potential acts of violence.

Sociologist Eileen Barker has identified five types of CWG:

1. cult-awareness groups (CAGs) focusing on the harm done by destructive cults, e.g. International Cultic Studies Association, Dialog Center, Rick Ross, Freedom of Mind, Operation Clambake
2. counter-cult groups (CCGs) focusing on the (heretical) teaching of non-mainstream groups, e.g. Reachout Trust, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, J. P. Moreland Edmond C. Gruss
3. research-orientated groups (ROGs) focusing on beliefs, practices and comparisons, e.g. Eileen Barker, Philip Zimbardo, Benjamin Beith-Hallami, Benjamin Zablocki
4. human-rights groups (HRGs) focusing on the human rights of religious minorities, e.g. Religioustolerance.org
5. cult-defender groups (CDGs) focusing on defending cults and exposing CAGs, e.g. J. Gordon Melton for AUM

Barker is an active participant on the subject of cult watching groups; her colleague Jeffrey Hadden wrote in a 1989 memo that "... Eileen has taken a very significant step in neutralizing anti-cult movements in the UK." She is regarded by many of her critics as a "cult apologist", as she has been listed by the Scientology-run "new Cult Awareness Network" as a professional referral and has admitted receiving funding from the Unification Church.

Opposition to cults: a taxonomy by Jeffrey Hadden

According to a taxonomy proposed by the late Professor Jeffrey K. Hadden, from the University of Virginia's Department of Sociology, there are in the organizational opposition to cults four distinct classes:

1. Religiously grounded opposition
   • Opposition usually defined in theological terms
   • Cults viewed as engaging in heresy
   • Mission is to expose the heresy and correct beliefs of those who have strayed from truth
   • Deception rather than possession is the likely metaphore
   • Opposition serves two important functions:
     • protects members (especially youth) from heresy
     • increases solidarity among the faithful
2. Secular opposition
   • Individual autonomy is professed to be the manifest goal. This is achieved by getting people out of religious groups.
   • The struggle is about control, not about theology.
   • Organized around families who have or have had children involved in a "cult."
   • Disabling or destruction of NRMs organizationally is latent goal.
3. Apostates
   • apostasy = the renunciation of a religious faith
   • apostate = one who engages in active opposition to their former faith
   • anti-cult movement -- has actively encouraged former members to interpret their exerience in a "cult" as one of being aggregiously wronged and encourages participation in organized anti-cult activities.
4. Entrepreneurial opposition
   • Individuals who take up a cause for personal gain.
   • Alliance or coalition to promote their agenda is ad hoc.
   • Broadcasters and journalists leading examples.
   • A few 'entrepreneurs' have made careers by creating organized opposition.

Note: Haddens attitude towards NMRs and towards what he calls the anti-cult movement has been sharply criticized by psychology Professor Benjamin Beith-Hallami and sociology Professor Benjamin Zablocki.

Cult watching groups and individuals, and other opposition to cults

Family members of adherents

The beginning of the opposition to cults and new religious movements started with family members of adherents who had problems with the sudden changes in character, lifestyle and future plans of their young adult children who had joined NRMs. Most of them are found in cult-awareness groups. Ted Patrick is an example of this group. Also the former Cult Awareness Network (old CAN) grew out of a grassroots movement by parents of cult members. The American Family Foundation (today International Cultic Studies Association), which addresses the problem with an approach focusing on research and education, was also initiated by a father whose daughter had joined a high-control group.

Former members

A small number of former members have taken an active stance in opposition to their former religion. They have founded cult watching groups often with an active presence on the internet, made their experiences public in books and on the internet, and work as expert witnesses or as exit counselors. Most of them are found in cult-awareness groups, e.g., Steven Hassan, Arnie Lerma, Robert Vaughn Young, Lawrence Wollersheim, Jan Groenveld, heading the Cult Awareness & Information Centre, and Roger Gonnet but some of them also in the counter-cult movement, e.g. Edmond C. Gruss and J. P. Moreland.

The motivations of the former members, the roles they play in the anti-cult movement and the validity of their testimony are highly controversial. See also Apostasy in new religious movements.

• Brian R. Wilson coined the term atrocity tales, which was later taken up by David G. Bromley and Anson Shupe. Gordon Melton stated that hostile ex-members invariably shade the truth. Lonnie Kliever asserts that former members present a distorted view of the new religions and cannot be regarded as reliable informants by responsible journalists, scholars, or jurists. Massimo Introvigne argues that the mayority of apostates hold no strong feelings concerning his past experiences, while apostates that dramatically reverse their loyalties and become "professional enemies" of their former group are a vociferous minority.

• Phillip Charles Lucas came to the conclusion that former members are as reliables as stayers. Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, a professor of psychology at the University of Haifa argues that in the cases of cult catastrophies such as People's Temple, or Heaven's Gate allegations by hostile outsiders and detractors have been closer to reality than other accounts, and that in that context statements by ex-members turned out to be more accurate than those of offered by apologists and NRM researchers. Beit-Hallahmi conducted an empirical study to assess the extent to which so-called "atrocity tales" might be based on fact and confirmed the conclusions of Lucas.

Established religion

Some groups associated with established religions such as Christianity and Judaism have been formed to counter what they view as heretical cultic versions of their religion or NMRs with non-Christian teachings. Most of them are counter-cult groups, with the goals to prevent current followers from joining NRMs, and to convince former members of their religion who have converted to NRMs to return. To this category belong, e.g., Reachout Trust, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, Watchman Fellowship or Walter Martin.

Some organizations which originated within the context of extablished religion are working in more general fields of cult-awareness, especially in Europe.. Examples of such groups are the evangelical Dialog Center, the Berlin-based Pfarramt für Sekten- und Weltanschauungsfragen ("Pastoral ministry for Sects and World Views.") headed by Rev. Thomas Gandow , the "Evangelische Informationsstelle Kirchen-Sekten-Religionen" (Evangelical information service on Churches, Sects and Religions) headed by prof. Georg Schmid , and Anton Hein's Apologetics Index in Amsterdam, the Catholic Sekten in Sachsen (sects in Saxony) , ""Weltanschauungen und religiöse Gruppierungen" ("Worldviews and religious groups") of the Austrian diocese of Linz , and GRIS in Italy and the Orthodox Center of Ireneus of Lyon in Russia.

Anti-Scientologists claiming restriction of free speech

Scientology drew opposition when it became known that they tried to restrict speech on the intranet.

religioustolerance.org states:

"Starting in 1994-DEC, the Church has aggressively attempted to defend their copyright on a wide range of confidential Church documents including rituals that they regard as highly secret. This has brought them into conflict with numerous Internet users and service providers who are keen to promote the complete freedom of speech on the Internet, without regard to copyrights held by individuals and organizations."

Examples are Zenon Panoussis, Karin Spaink, David S. Touretzky, and Ron Newman. See also Scientology versus The Internet.

Skeptics

Skeptics are often concerned about what they consider false miracles performed or endorsed by the leadership of the group. They often criticize belief systems which they believe to be idiosyncratic, bizarre or irrational. See also Allegations against cults made by skeptics. Samples are the Sceptics Dictionary, Holysmoke, Martin Poulter.

Media

Journalists who published major articles regarding NMRs are, e.g., Joseph Mallia in Boston Herald (1998), Gustav Neighbour in Washington Post 1993, Richard Behar in Time (magazine) (1991), Charles Krauser in Washington Post 1978.

Cult watchers

Other opponents include cult watchers Rick Ross, in Switzerland Infosekta, in Germany AGPF (Action for mental and psychical freedom), Tilman Hausherr

Polarized views by scholars

The field of cults and new religious movements has been studied by social scientists, sociologists, religious scholars, psychologists and psychiatrists since the early 1980s. The debates about a certain purported cult and cults in general are often polarized with widely divergent opinions, not only among current followers and disaffected former members, but sometimes even among scholars as well.

All academics agree that some groups have been problematic and sometimes very problematic but they disagree to what extent new religious movements in general are harmful.

Scholars are found among all five groups of cult watchers, most of them are sociologists, psychologists and in the field of science of religion. Some like John Gordon Clark, Margaret Singer, Stephen A. Kent and David C. Lane are in the cult awareness field, others like J. P. Moreland or Edmond C. Gruss in the counter cult field, Eileen Barker, Benjamin Beith-Hallami, Benjamin Zablocki, Michael Langone and Joseph Zimbardo are research oriented. Jeffrey Hadden and Douglas E. Cowan are focused on human rights of religious groups while J. Gordon Melton researches movements like Scientology and the Unification church and published encyclopedias of new religious movements. Other scholars studying and researching new and often defending religious movements include Irving Hexham, James R. Lewis, Anson Shupe and David G. Bromley.

There are many controversial subjects among scholars regarding new religious movements

• the validity of the testimonies of former members (see #Former members)
• the validity of the testimonies of current members
• the validity of various theories such brainwashing and mind control
• the validity and differences between exit counseling and coercive deprogramming
• the validity of evidence of harm caused by cults, e.g. the post-cult trauma
• ethical concerns regarding new religious movements, e.g. free will, freedom of speech
• oppposition to cults vs. freedom of religion and religious intolerance
• the objectivity of scholars studying new religious movements (see cult apologists)
• the acceptance of the DIMPAC report (Amitrani & di Marzio, 2000, Massimo Introvigne), see also Mind control#Scholarly positions

Opposition to cults in the media

It is very often the case that the only view the public gets of a new religious movement, controversial group or purported cult is the commonly negative, and often sensationalized reports by the media. One recurring theme, that manifests as opposition to new religious movements, is what some sociologists call negative summary event. In the words of James A. Beckford, negative summary events " refers to the journalistic description of a situation or event in such a way as to capture and express its negative essence as part of an intermittent and slow-moving story. An apparently isolated happening is thereby used as an occasion for keeping the broader, controversial phenomenon in the public mind." James R. Lewis writes in his book Cults in America that the tendency of the media to focus on negative events is a general trait of the media and also applies for other subjects treated by them.

Larry R. Moffitt, Vice President of the Tiempos del Mundo newspapers, asserts that after an entire body of believers runs afoul of the law in a dramatic and sensational manner such as the mass suicides at Jonestown, the Branch Davidians and the suicide of the Heaven’s Gate group , " it doesn’t take many of these episodes for the public to view any religion whose founding prophet is currently living, as being of one this dangerous ilk."

Newspaper columnist Cal Thomas makes reference to stereoptypes in journalism dictated by " a raging, unforgiving, imposing, intolerant, arrogant secularism that claims that any idea or authority that comes from a source higher than the mind of humankind is to be a priori overruled as unconstitutional, immoral, illegal and ignorant."

Michael Horowitz, a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC, characterizes the dominant culture as an environment of religious persecution: "Today's elites find it hard to believe that Christians can possibly be the persecuted rather than the persecutors … Believing Christians have been patronized as polyester bigots against whom a modern, thinking, caring culture must protect itself."

In a survey conducted in 1983 by John Dart and Jimmy Allen it was found that an "unhealthy distrust exists between religionists and journalists. Religious figures fear being misunderstood and misrepresented; journalists fear making mistakes and incurring religious wrath. The resulting apprehensions inhibit the free flow of information and only add to misunderstanding."

According to the Encyclopedia of Social Work (19th edition), the news media play an influential role in the general public's perception of cults. As reported in several studies, the media have depicted cults as problematic, controversial, and threatening from the beginning, tending to favor sensationalistic stories over balanced public debates (Beckford, 1985; Richardson, Best, & Bromley, 1991; Victor, 1993). It furthers the analysis that media reports on cults rely heavily on police officials and cult "experts" who portray cult activity as dangerous and destructive, and when divergent views are presented, they are often overshadowed by horrific stories of ritualistic torture, sexual abuse, mind control, etc. Furthermore, unfounded allegations, when proved untrue, receive little or no media attention.

See also

• Cult apologist
• Freedom of religion
• Religious pluralism

References

1. Amitrani, Alberto and di Marzio, Raffaella : "Mind Control" in New Religious Movements and the American Psychological Association, Cultic Studies Journal Vol 17, 2000.
2. Amitrani, Alberto and di Marzio, Raffaella :
3. Anthony, Dick, Brainwashing and Totalitarian Influence. An Exploration of Admissibility Criteria for Testimony in Brainwashing Trials, Ph.D. Diss., Berkeley (California): Graduate Theological Union, 1996, p. 165.
4. Anthony, Dick. 1990. "Religious Movements and 'Brainwashing' Litigation" in Dick Anthony and Thomas Robbins, In Gods We Trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
5. Barker, Eileen: Watching for Violence: A Comparative Analysis of the Roles of Five Types of Cult-Watching Groups, 2001
6. Beckford, James A., Cult Controversies: The Societal Response to New Religious Movements, London, Tavistock, 1985, p. 235
7. Bromley, David G., Ph.D. & Anson Shupe, Ph.D., Public Reaction against New Religious Movements article that appeared in Cults and new religious movements: a report of the Committee on Psychiatry and Religion of the American Psychiatric Association, edited by Marc Galanter, M.D., (1989) ISBN 0-89042-212-5
8. Dart, John and Allen, Jimmy; Bridging the Gap: Religion and the News Media, Freedom Forum First Amendment Center, Vanderbilt University, Sept. 1993
9. Hadden, Jeffrey K., The Anti-Cult Movement Available online
10. Hadden, Jeffrey K., The Brainwashing Controversy
11. Hadden, Jeffrey K, "A confidential memorandum, 20 December 1989
12. Horowitz, Michael J., Breaking the Chains Around the Gulags of Faith, acceptance speech on receiving the William Wilberforce Award, February 5, 1997.
13. Introvigne, Massimo, “Liar, Liar”: Brainwashing, CESNUR and APA (Rebuttal to DIMPAC report)
14. Kropveld, Michael: An Example for Controversy: Creating a Model for Reconciliation,
15. Langone, Michael: Cults, Psychological Manipulation, and Society: International Perspectives - An Overview
16. Langone, Michael: Secular and Religious Critiques of Cults: Complementary Visions, Not Irresolvable Conflicts, Cultic Studies Journal, 1995, Volume 12, Number 2
17. Moffitt, Larry R., Media and Religious Intolerance: A Clash of Alien Cultures, Presented at the conference of the International Coalition for Religious Freedom, October 10-12, 1998 – São Paulo, Brazil
18. Robins, Susan P., PhD. Encyclopedia of Social Work, 19th Edition, National Association of Social Workers. Washington, DC. 1997 Update
19. Robbins, T. (2000). “Quo Vadis” the Scientific Study of New Religious Movements? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39(4), 515-523.
20. Rowe, L., & Cavender, G. (1991). Caldrons bubble, Satan's trouble, but witches are okay: Media constructions of Satanism and witchcraft.
21. Thomas, Cal, remarks at a conference, Religious Liberty in America: Crossroads or Crisis?, sponsored by the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, March 16-17, 1993
22. Victor, J. S. (1993). Satanic panic: The creation of a contemporary legend. Chicago: Open Court Publishing. In J. T. Richardson, J. Best, & D. G. Bromley (Eds.), The satanism scare (pp. 263-275). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
23. Wilson, Brian R., Apostates and New Religious Movements, Oxford, England 1994
24. Zablocki, Benjamin Misunderstanding Cults: Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field , ISBN 0802081886
25. Zablocki, Benjamin, Methodological Fallacies in Anthony's Critique of Exit Cost Analysis

• Cults
• New religious movements