Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 12
years [has] been remarkably consistent in showing that hitting children increases the
chances of a child becoming physically aggressive, delinquent, or both.... [C]orporal
punishment leaves invisible scars that affect many other aspects of life‖ (Straus 1994:186).
It also ―reflects a deep but rarely perceived cultural approval of violence to correct many
types of wrongs‖ (Straus 1994:181).
Specifically writing about corporal punishment in Christian religious settings, Philip Greven
identified a litany of negative consequences on young victims, all of which have dramatic
implications for assessing risk posed by religious groups. These negative consequences for
corporal-punishment victims frequently include the creation of: anxiety and fear, anger and
hate, apathy and the stifling of empathy, melancholy and depression, obsessiveness and
rigidity, ambivalent feelings of love and hate toward the perpetrators, dissociative states,
paranoia, attraction to sadomasochism, authoritarianism, and propensities toward domestic
violence (Greven 1991:121-204). A specific religious consequence of religiously sanctioned
corporal punishment is the creation of what Greven called ―the apocalyptic impulse,‖ which
he described as ―anticipating the end of this world and the inauguration of the new
millennium‖ (Greven 1991:204). Clearly, therefore, any attempt to assess and predict
danger from religions must factor in whether they utilize corporal punishment in child-
rearing. To the extent that they do, then their members, especially those reared within
these groups, may have a propensity toward apocalyptic violence that stems from the
violence they already have known firsthand.
III. Intragroup Contributors to Religious Dangers
Just as biopsychosocial issues can increase the likelihood of violence manifesting in
interpersonal relations, so too can difficulties in interpersonal relations affect the likelihood
of violence in exchanges between individuals and groups. Initial insights into these
conditions for the likelihood of radicalized religious violence take their lead from Roy‘s work
on teen violence, but the infusion of religion into our analysis makes the conditions more
complex. Roy offered that the probability of violence increased under two conditions: Either
people feel alienated from groups (and react against them with anger), or they align with
groups that have violent norms (Roy 2000:396). The basis for these claims is Roy‘s belief
that people (especially teens) may lash out at a group which they feel has excluded or
humiliated them, but they also may commit violence simply by following the norms of a
group that is violent but which fulfills their needs for belonging, friendship, and self-esteem.
While certainly these insights have some bearing on the issue of assessing groups for their
potential risks, the infusion of religious ideology into (especially volatile) intragroup settings
makes risk assessment much more complex.
Adding to group volatility, of course, is the fact that the content of the religious ideology—
and the social structure that reinforces it—likely reflects the imbalances of the charismatic
leader. Put simply, many charismatic leaders have unrecognized biopsychosocial disorders,
and they create theologies based upon them. These theologies contain the usual secular
rewards that most groups offer—possibilities for friendship, status, purposiveness, and so
on, but also ‗heavenly‘ rewards involving enlightenment, salvation, closeness to God, and
the like. Equally important as human motivators are the secular and spiritual punishments
within these theologies—shunning, costly rehabilitation programs, dire warnings about hell
and damnation. The charismatic leaders, however, place themselves within these reward
and punishment systems either as godly arbiters who assign the rewards and punishments
or as the god-figures themselves. In either situations, the theologies replicate, in significant
degrees, the biopsychosocial dysfunctions of the leaders. As increasing numbers of people
misattribute biopsychosocial dysfunction as proof of a guru‘s charismatic connections to the
divine (see Proudfoot and Shaver 1975 Kent 1994b), they become adherents or followers
who staff social structures that attempt to maintain and further the dysfunctional
worldviews. Dysfunctional leaders and their followers, therefore, become codependents. The
years [has] been remarkably consistent in showing that hitting children increases the
chances of a child becoming physically aggressive, delinquent, or both.... [C]orporal
punishment leaves invisible scars that affect many other aspects of life‖ (Straus 1994:186).
It also ―reflects a deep but rarely perceived cultural approval of violence to correct many
types of wrongs‖ (Straus 1994:181).
Specifically writing about corporal punishment in Christian religious settings, Philip Greven
identified a litany of negative consequences on young victims, all of which have dramatic
implications for assessing risk posed by religious groups. These negative consequences for
corporal-punishment victims frequently include the creation of: anxiety and fear, anger and
hate, apathy and the stifling of empathy, melancholy and depression, obsessiveness and
rigidity, ambivalent feelings of love and hate toward the perpetrators, dissociative states,
paranoia, attraction to sadomasochism, authoritarianism, and propensities toward domestic
violence (Greven 1991:121-204). A specific religious consequence of religiously sanctioned
corporal punishment is the creation of what Greven called ―the apocalyptic impulse,‖ which
he described as ―anticipating the end of this world and the inauguration of the new
millennium‖ (Greven 1991:204). Clearly, therefore, any attempt to assess and predict
danger from religions must factor in whether they utilize corporal punishment in child-
rearing. To the extent that they do, then their members, especially those reared within
these groups, may have a propensity toward apocalyptic violence that stems from the
violence they already have known firsthand.
III. Intragroup Contributors to Religious Dangers
Just as biopsychosocial issues can increase the likelihood of violence manifesting in
interpersonal relations, so too can difficulties in interpersonal relations affect the likelihood
of violence in exchanges between individuals and groups. Initial insights into these
conditions for the likelihood of radicalized religious violence take their lead from Roy‘s work
on teen violence, but the infusion of religion into our analysis makes the conditions more
complex. Roy offered that the probability of violence increased under two conditions: Either
people feel alienated from groups (and react against them with anger), or they align with
groups that have violent norms (Roy 2000:396). The basis for these claims is Roy‘s belief
that people (especially teens) may lash out at a group which they feel has excluded or
humiliated them, but they also may commit violence simply by following the norms of a
group that is violent but which fulfills their needs for belonging, friendship, and self-esteem.
While certainly these insights have some bearing on the issue of assessing groups for their
potential risks, the infusion of religious ideology into (especially volatile) intragroup settings
makes risk assessment much more complex.
Adding to group volatility, of course, is the fact that the content of the religious ideology—
and the social structure that reinforces it—likely reflects the imbalances of the charismatic
leader. Put simply, many charismatic leaders have unrecognized biopsychosocial disorders,
and they create theologies based upon them. These theologies contain the usual secular
rewards that most groups offer—possibilities for friendship, status, purposiveness, and so
on, but also ‗heavenly‘ rewards involving enlightenment, salvation, closeness to God, and
the like. Equally important as human motivators are the secular and spiritual punishments
within these theologies—shunning, costly rehabilitation programs, dire warnings about hell
and damnation. The charismatic leaders, however, place themselves within these reward
and punishment systems either as godly arbiters who assign the rewards and punishments
or as the god-figures themselves. In either situations, the theologies replicate, in significant
degrees, the biopsychosocial dysfunctions of the leaders. As increasing numbers of people
misattribute biopsychosocial dysfunction as proof of a guru‘s charismatic connections to the
divine (see Proudfoot and Shaver 1975 Kent 1994b), they become adherents or followers
who staff social structures that attempt to maintain and further the dysfunctional
worldviews. Dysfunctional leaders and their followers, therefore, become codependents. The
