Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 15
people as legitimate targets for their social-control efforts through harassments and
retaliations.
We need not be reminded, for example, that a defector was among the first people killed on
the tarmac at Jonestown (Reiterman and Jacobs 1982:517-518, 530-531), and the first
victims of the Solar Temple deaths were a disaffected couple who had access to the leaders‘
secrets, along with their infant son (Hall with Schuyler and Trinh 2000:112, 139-140).
Former members of Ervil LeBarron‘s Church of the Firstborn (a fundamentalist Mormon
group) died in murders directed by the leader, some deaths even occurring after he was
dead (Chynoweth and Shapiro 1990:3-5, 148) and a vocal critic on the fringes of the
Kirtanananda branch of the Hare Krishnas was shot, stabbed, and had his head bashed in
(Hubner and Gruson 1988:18). Synanon sent out members of a ―goon squad‖ (i.e., a group
of thugs) to silence critics and defectors (Gerstel 1982:263-264 Mitchell, Mitchell, and
Ofshe 1980:168, 169-171, 180), and Aum Shinrikyo killed the elderly brother of a defector
in a failed interrogation to determine where his sister was (Brackett 1996:121-123 Kaplan
and Marshall 1996:227-229).
Scientology had a written policy in place (dated October 18, 1967), specifically applied to
troublesome former members and other critics, which stated that a member whom the
organization declared an ―enemy‖ was ―Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured
by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be
tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed‖ (Hubbard 1967). Its originator was Scientology‘s
founder, L. Ron Hubbard and when he cancelled the ―fair game‖ policy a year later, he did
so because ―[i]t causes bad public relations.‖ He added, however, that this supposed
cancellation actually ―does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling‖ of a person
attempting to hinder or harm Scientology (Hubbard 1968). During that and subsequent
years, Scientology appears to have applied the ―fair game‖ doctrine to numerous
troublesome defectors and critics (Breckenridge 1984a Hubbard 1968 Kent 2003).
Drawing another analogy to the family-violence literature, the manner in which some
groups attack former members parallels how some abusive former partners stalk their
estranged companions (Sheridan, Davies, and Boon 2001). Neither the abusive group
leaders nor the abusive former partners can stand the loss of power represented by the
defections—by persons formerly under their control but now ostensibly out from under it.
Among, for example, the different types of family abuse, ―they seem to be acts carried out
by abusers to compensate for their perceived lack of or loss of power” (Finkelhor 1983:19
[italics in original]). So, too, is it the same for types of abuse by some groups toward
persons who have left their flock. Moreover, some of the power that defectors can have over
leaders is "inside knowledge"—knowledge about life as a member that may reveal realities
that persons holding group power would prefer to keep quiet. Sometimes, therefore, group
leaders and/or members attempt retaliations to frighten and intimidate other times, they
kill. A strong predictor, therefore, about the danger posed by a religion is the manner in
which it deals with former members, especially ones who turn into critics.
IV. Intergroup Contributors to Religious Dangers
Somewhat cryptically, Roy (2000:398) states that ―feeling alienated from and persecuted by
other groups aid the development of violence.‖ Presumably because of that alienation,
[g]roup members are unable to enter into superordinate goals with people
from other groups. Superordinate goals require the cooperation of people
from different groups to accomplish a goal. Without superordinate goals,
conflict between groups can escalate (Roy 2000:398).
Although sociologists might dispute these statements as absolute truths—for example,
controversial ‗religious‘ groups have worked together on the superordinate goal of fighting
people as legitimate targets for their social-control efforts through harassments and
retaliations.
We need not be reminded, for example, that a defector was among the first people killed on
the tarmac at Jonestown (Reiterman and Jacobs 1982:517-518, 530-531), and the first
victims of the Solar Temple deaths were a disaffected couple who had access to the leaders‘
secrets, along with their infant son (Hall with Schuyler and Trinh 2000:112, 139-140).
Former members of Ervil LeBarron‘s Church of the Firstborn (a fundamentalist Mormon
group) died in murders directed by the leader, some deaths even occurring after he was
dead (Chynoweth and Shapiro 1990:3-5, 148) and a vocal critic on the fringes of the
Kirtanananda branch of the Hare Krishnas was shot, stabbed, and had his head bashed in
(Hubner and Gruson 1988:18). Synanon sent out members of a ―goon squad‖ (i.e., a group
of thugs) to silence critics and defectors (Gerstel 1982:263-264 Mitchell, Mitchell, and
Ofshe 1980:168, 169-171, 180), and Aum Shinrikyo killed the elderly brother of a defector
in a failed interrogation to determine where his sister was (Brackett 1996:121-123 Kaplan
and Marshall 1996:227-229).
Scientology had a written policy in place (dated October 18, 1967), specifically applied to
troublesome former members and other critics, which stated that a member whom the
organization declared an ―enemy‖ was ―Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured
by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be
tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed‖ (Hubbard 1967). Its originator was Scientology‘s
founder, L. Ron Hubbard and when he cancelled the ―fair game‖ policy a year later, he did
so because ―[i]t causes bad public relations.‖ He added, however, that this supposed
cancellation actually ―does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling‖ of a person
attempting to hinder or harm Scientology (Hubbard 1968). During that and subsequent
years, Scientology appears to have applied the ―fair game‖ doctrine to numerous
troublesome defectors and critics (Breckenridge 1984a Hubbard 1968 Kent 2003).
Drawing another analogy to the family-violence literature, the manner in which some
groups attack former members parallels how some abusive former partners stalk their
estranged companions (Sheridan, Davies, and Boon 2001). Neither the abusive group
leaders nor the abusive former partners can stand the loss of power represented by the
defections—by persons formerly under their control but now ostensibly out from under it.
Among, for example, the different types of family abuse, ―they seem to be acts carried out
by abusers to compensate for their perceived lack of or loss of power” (Finkelhor 1983:19
[italics in original]). So, too, is it the same for types of abuse by some groups toward
persons who have left their flock. Moreover, some of the power that defectors can have over
leaders is "inside knowledge"—knowledge about life as a member that may reveal realities
that persons holding group power would prefer to keep quiet. Sometimes, therefore, group
leaders and/or members attempt retaliations to frighten and intimidate other times, they
kill. A strong predictor, therefore, about the danger posed by a religion is the manner in
which it deals with former members, especially ones who turn into critics.
IV. Intergroup Contributors to Religious Dangers
Somewhat cryptically, Roy (2000:398) states that ―feeling alienated from and persecuted by
other groups aid the development of violence.‖ Presumably because of that alienation,
[g]roup members are unable to enter into superordinate goals with people
from other groups. Superordinate goals require the cooperation of people
from different groups to accomplish a goal. Without superordinate goals,
conflict between groups can escalate (Roy 2000:398).
Although sociologists might dispute these statements as absolute truths—for example,
controversial ‗religious‘ groups have worked together on the superordinate goal of fighting
