International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 3, 2012 5
reference to its rites and ceremonies.”16 Because
a common feature of various policy definitions
of religion is belief in something supernatural
(with the word spiritual increasingly being used
as an alternative, with the effect of extending the
definition to further groups), it seems that for the
most part groups sociologically described as
cults categorically form part of the religious
spectrum for policy purposes (even when the
group itself claims otherwise, and sometimes
when the group is described otherwise by
critics). Even if a group is seen as a personal-
development or therapeutic cult, there is
potential for it to slide into a religious category
for policy purposes.
Therefore, if we want to address the policy
ramifications presented by cults in those
countries where cults are located on the
spectrum of religious organizations (or where
groups can easily slide into the spectrum), we
are drawn inexorably to the field of regulating
religion. To expand upon the list above
provided by Scientology (wherein religions
benefit from government largesse), this field
includes exemptions from elements of charitable
collections legislation the right to perform
officially recognized marriage ceremonies
taxation and rating exemptions at all
governmental levels exemptions from
nondiscrimination and other laws relating to
employment clergy privileges funding of faith-
based schools (including chaplaincy funding)
privilege to proselytize in public schools (special
religious instruction) exemption from national
service and the benefit of the protection of
religious vilification laws. This list is by no
means exhaustive.
Religions also benefit from overarching
constitutional provisions that provide various
levels of protection and support for freedom of
religious belief and practice. I argue that
fundamental law protections, while well
intentioned, can potentially stymie governmental
attempts to effectively regulate religions to
ensure genuine freedom of religion for all.
16 The Macquarie Dictionary (Sydney: Macquarie Library Pty Ltd,
1981), p. 455.
Fundamental Laws
Various attempts have been made in the policy
sphere to separate cults from “authentic”
religion, to prevent them from gaining access to
privileges and exemptions afforded to religious
groups generally.17 Governments also have tried
to impose sanctions on a particular group
because it is considered to be problematic (seen
as probably a cult but certainly not a religion).18
Sometimes religions are given a class privilege
or exemption on the basis of a perceived
constitutional obligation for a state to be neutral
between religions, or not to discriminate against
any particular “religion” (including, in
particular, new groups). Sometimes all religions
are afforded a class exemption or privilege on
the basis that a government has taken a policy
decision not to be seen to favor any particular
group.
When privileges and exemptions are granted on
the basis of a category or class, historically
devices have been found to disqualify
problematic groups. One mechanism is that of
“definitional disqualification.” An example of
this is the dexterous manner in which the
Charity Commission for England and Wales
ruled that Scientology did not fit the extant
definition of religion for charity-law purposes.
The Commission ruled that Scientology failed
the second prong of a two-pronged definition—
belief in God, and worship. Scientology
auditing was ruled to be akin to counseling
rather than worship. So the term religion may
be defined differently for different statutory
purposes, and groups may be disqualified on the
basis of a definition.19
Vague constitutional rights provisions found in
fundamental laws sometimes make it difficult to
maintain this type of definitional distinction and
17 Hence, it has been claimed, for example, that “Falon Gong is not
a religion but a cult that brings harm to society and an illegal
organization that engages in law-breaking activities,” Ji Shi, Li
Hongzhi &His “Falon Gong”: Deceiving the Public and Ruining
Lives (Beijing: New Star Publishers, 1999), pp. 1–2.
18 This strategy was employed by various Australian governments
in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s in an attempt to deal with
Scientology.
19 Stephen Mutch, Cults, Religion and Public Policy: A
Comparison of Official Responses to Scientology in Australia and
the United Kingdom (PhD thesis, University of New South Wales,
2004).
reference to its rites and ceremonies.”16 Because
a common feature of various policy definitions
of religion is belief in something supernatural
(with the word spiritual increasingly being used
as an alternative, with the effect of extending the
definition to further groups), it seems that for the
most part groups sociologically described as
cults categorically form part of the religious
spectrum for policy purposes (even when the
group itself claims otherwise, and sometimes
when the group is described otherwise by
critics). Even if a group is seen as a personal-
development or therapeutic cult, there is
potential for it to slide into a religious category
for policy purposes.
Therefore, if we want to address the policy
ramifications presented by cults in those
countries where cults are located on the
spectrum of religious organizations (or where
groups can easily slide into the spectrum), we
are drawn inexorably to the field of regulating
religion. To expand upon the list above
provided by Scientology (wherein religions
benefit from government largesse), this field
includes exemptions from elements of charitable
collections legislation the right to perform
officially recognized marriage ceremonies
taxation and rating exemptions at all
governmental levels exemptions from
nondiscrimination and other laws relating to
employment clergy privileges funding of faith-
based schools (including chaplaincy funding)
privilege to proselytize in public schools (special
religious instruction) exemption from national
service and the benefit of the protection of
religious vilification laws. This list is by no
means exhaustive.
Religions also benefit from overarching
constitutional provisions that provide various
levels of protection and support for freedom of
religious belief and practice. I argue that
fundamental law protections, while well
intentioned, can potentially stymie governmental
attempts to effectively regulate religions to
ensure genuine freedom of religion for all.
16 The Macquarie Dictionary (Sydney: Macquarie Library Pty Ltd,
1981), p. 455.
Fundamental Laws
Various attempts have been made in the policy
sphere to separate cults from “authentic”
religion, to prevent them from gaining access to
privileges and exemptions afforded to religious
groups generally.17 Governments also have tried
to impose sanctions on a particular group
because it is considered to be problematic (seen
as probably a cult but certainly not a religion).18
Sometimes religions are given a class privilege
or exemption on the basis of a perceived
constitutional obligation for a state to be neutral
between religions, or not to discriminate against
any particular “religion” (including, in
particular, new groups). Sometimes all religions
are afforded a class exemption or privilege on
the basis that a government has taken a policy
decision not to be seen to favor any particular
group.
When privileges and exemptions are granted on
the basis of a category or class, historically
devices have been found to disqualify
problematic groups. One mechanism is that of
“definitional disqualification.” An example of
this is the dexterous manner in which the
Charity Commission for England and Wales
ruled that Scientology did not fit the extant
definition of religion for charity-law purposes.
The Commission ruled that Scientology failed
the second prong of a two-pronged definition—
belief in God, and worship. Scientology
auditing was ruled to be akin to counseling
rather than worship. So the term religion may
be defined differently for different statutory
purposes, and groups may be disqualified on the
basis of a definition.19
Vague constitutional rights provisions found in
fundamental laws sometimes make it difficult to
maintain this type of definitional distinction and
17 Hence, it has been claimed, for example, that “Falon Gong is not
a religion but a cult that brings harm to society and an illegal
organization that engages in law-breaking activities,” Ji Shi, Li
Hongzhi &His “Falon Gong”: Deceiving the Public and Ruining
Lives (Beijing: New Star Publishers, 1999), pp. 1–2.
18 This strategy was employed by various Australian governments
in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s in an attempt to deal with
Scientology.
19 Stephen Mutch, Cults, Religion and Public Policy: A
Comparison of Official Responses to Scientology in Australia and
the United Kingdom (PhD thesis, University of New South Wales,
2004).
