Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2008, Page 36
of how society should deal with the existing group and its former members, who were not
criminally charged, remains unresolved.
From 2001 through 2005, the local communities and educational institutions that had to
face this problem dealt with it by campaigning against the residency of former members or
by rejecting their enrollment in local schools—as if to say these communities and
institutions could not coexist with ―cults.‖ Local authorities initially refused to accept the
former members‘ registration of residence under the pretext of safeguarding the area‘s
―public welfare.‖ That such measures were taken is not surprising, given the anxiety of local
residents and the public‘s anti-cult sentiment in the late 1990s. Indeed, new laws had been
enacted to monitor the Aum cult. However, at the insistence of Aleph members and their
supporters, the courts demanded that local communities and schools comply with the law.
In other words, the courts reaffirmed the right of any Japanese citizen to enjoy freedom of
residence and the right to education, even if he or she was a ―cult‖ member. At that time,
human-rights groups strongly supported those related to Aleph critics and media pundits
admonished the ―morally panicked‖ Japanese and went on to criticize the logic of banishing
―cults‖ as an emotional reaction that was not in line with ―the public good‖ (Shimizu, 2004).
Journalists, writers, and the general public, who, since the late 1990s, have grown tired of
the endless ―Aum bashing,‖ now tend to share the view that ―cult‖ followers are ordinary
people. At this point, those who have campaigned against the residency or college
enrollment of Aleph-related persons and members in the local community are considered
obstinate, even socially isolated.
In this paper, the author explores the conflict between Aum and local communities—in
particular, cases that occurred between 1999 and 2001. Aleph members, the children of the
Aum leader and related persons, and a number of other members moved into the local
communities of Fujioka City, Gunma Prefecture, Ryugasaki City, Ibaraki Prefecture, and
Karasuyama, Setagaya Ward, Tokyo. In these areas, authorities refused to allow these
individuals to register as residents and to permit their children to enroll in school, and local
residents conducted a campaign urging Aleph members to leave the community.
Before discussing these cases, however, let me comment on the conflict between the anti-
―cult‖ movement and the logic of supporting human rights.
The Anti-“Cult” Movement and the Human-Rights Movement
The phrase ―anti-cult movement‖ refers to a variety of social activities promoted by those
who are critical of certain groups deemed ―cults,‖ as well as to experts working to educate
the public about the ―cult‖ issue (Shupe and Bromley, 1994). The term ―anti-cult
movement‖ was coined by sociologists of religion who took issue with the concept of ―cult‖
and preferred the term ―new religious movement.‖ However, to understand how the term
―cult‖ became so widespread in public discourse, it is necessary to explain who created the
concept and who has used the term to promote their own interests with the public (Barker,
2002). The Japan De-Cult Council (later The Japan Society for Cult Prevention and
Recovery) was founded in 1995 and consists of Aum victims and their families, former
members who support defectors from cults, lawyers and counselors, and clinical
psychologists. The council has devoted its time to educating the public on the issue. The
author, as a board member of this organization, has been involved in working to resolve the
cult issue in a practical and realistic manner. Thus, the cult issue was initially formulated as
a social problem by the anti-cult movement.
In recent years, criticism of the anti-cult movement has begun to dominate scholarly, if not
public, discourse. This trend has been particularly conspicuous in local anti-Aleph
movements, the leaders of which are local municipalities, councilpersons, city officials, and
local residents, all nonprofessionals who confronted the Aum cult with great determination
despite the ominous ―cult‖ images purveyed by the media. Those leaders were emotionally
of how society should deal with the existing group and its former members, who were not
criminally charged, remains unresolved.
From 2001 through 2005, the local communities and educational institutions that had to
face this problem dealt with it by campaigning against the residency of former members or
by rejecting their enrollment in local schools—as if to say these communities and
institutions could not coexist with ―cults.‖ Local authorities initially refused to accept the
former members‘ registration of residence under the pretext of safeguarding the area‘s
―public welfare.‖ That such measures were taken is not surprising, given the anxiety of local
residents and the public‘s anti-cult sentiment in the late 1990s. Indeed, new laws had been
enacted to monitor the Aum cult. However, at the insistence of Aleph members and their
supporters, the courts demanded that local communities and schools comply with the law.
In other words, the courts reaffirmed the right of any Japanese citizen to enjoy freedom of
residence and the right to education, even if he or she was a ―cult‖ member. At that time,
human-rights groups strongly supported those related to Aleph critics and media pundits
admonished the ―morally panicked‖ Japanese and went on to criticize the logic of banishing
―cults‖ as an emotional reaction that was not in line with ―the public good‖ (Shimizu, 2004).
Journalists, writers, and the general public, who, since the late 1990s, have grown tired of
the endless ―Aum bashing,‖ now tend to share the view that ―cult‖ followers are ordinary
people. At this point, those who have campaigned against the residency or college
enrollment of Aleph-related persons and members in the local community are considered
obstinate, even socially isolated.
In this paper, the author explores the conflict between Aum and local communities—in
particular, cases that occurred between 1999 and 2001. Aleph members, the children of the
Aum leader and related persons, and a number of other members moved into the local
communities of Fujioka City, Gunma Prefecture, Ryugasaki City, Ibaraki Prefecture, and
Karasuyama, Setagaya Ward, Tokyo. In these areas, authorities refused to allow these
individuals to register as residents and to permit their children to enroll in school, and local
residents conducted a campaign urging Aleph members to leave the community.
Before discussing these cases, however, let me comment on the conflict between the anti-
―cult‖ movement and the logic of supporting human rights.
The Anti-“Cult” Movement and the Human-Rights Movement
The phrase ―anti-cult movement‖ refers to a variety of social activities promoted by those
who are critical of certain groups deemed ―cults,‖ as well as to experts working to educate
the public about the ―cult‖ issue (Shupe and Bromley, 1994). The term ―anti-cult
movement‖ was coined by sociologists of religion who took issue with the concept of ―cult‖
and preferred the term ―new religious movement.‖ However, to understand how the term
―cult‖ became so widespread in public discourse, it is necessary to explain who created the
concept and who has used the term to promote their own interests with the public (Barker,
2002). The Japan De-Cult Council (later The Japan Society for Cult Prevention and
Recovery) was founded in 1995 and consists of Aum victims and their families, former
members who support defectors from cults, lawyers and counselors, and clinical
psychologists. The council has devoted its time to educating the public on the issue. The
author, as a board member of this organization, has been involved in working to resolve the
cult issue in a practical and realistic manner. Thus, the cult issue was initially formulated as
a social problem by the anti-cult movement.
In recent years, criticism of the anti-cult movement has begun to dominate scholarly, if not
public, discourse. This trend has been particularly conspicuous in local anti-Aleph
movements, the leaders of which are local municipalities, councilpersons, city officials, and
local residents, all nonprofessionals who confronted the Aum cult with great determination
despite the ominous ―cult‖ images purveyed by the media. Those leaders were emotionally
