Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1 1985, Page 104
other viewpoints and analyses, but whom he has excluded from the sample because their
attitudes were deemed pernicious. This is no problem unless we are to generalize from the
attitudes of exit counselors to cult-, and their, converts, in which case, we should also
consider the perceptions of the ―alternate counselors.‖
Respectfully,
Thomas Robbins, Ph.D.
To The Editor:
The University of Nebraska‘s conference, ―Other Realities: New Religions and Revitalization
Movements‖ (March 27-30, 1985), provided a unique opportunity to hear conflicting
arguments on the cult issue. Papers were presented by scholars thought of as apologists for
cults, as well as by critics of the cults. The scholars were mainly sociologists and historians
of religion. A few philosophers were present. As a member of a distinct minority, i.e., those
who oppose the theory and practice of many ―new religions,‖ I found the divergent
approaches intriguing. The sociological and historical papers reflected contradictory views on
what is valid scholarship, what it means to be human, and what is a proper mode for the
ascertainment of truth. The Issues addressed were profound ones. Any summary of the
proceedings will do injustice to the conference‘s tone, level of erudition, and the common
respect displayed among the participants. The following comments reflect one participant‘s
observations.
Sharing a meal with Tom Robbins, one of the more prolific authors in this field, affords a
better view of his humor and perspective than can be gleaned from the intelligence which
marks his published prose. Dr. Robbins seems to be a concerned and honest social
observer. His formal statements, however, display a flawed judgment which one would hope
not to find accompanying such finely honed instincts for intrusions on freedom. An example
can be found in his plenary address on the legal problems posed by new religions. Robbins
claimed that the Constitution presupposes personal autonomy as a universal and constant
reality. This is historically inaccurate. The framers adhered to the view that free will was a
fragile human potential. The Bill of Rights was written to protect this fragility. This subtle,
crucial distinction appears to set sociologists like Dr. Robbins apart from those of us who
tend to be critical of cults. These sociologists appear to begin an examination with sweeping
assumptions that necessarily support the ensuing intellectual framework (―model‖) through
which their conclusions are shaped, and predetermined. Robbins was the least ardent
practitioner of this analytic approach.
Dr. Rodney Sawatsky, who teaches Religion and History at Conrad Greble College in
Waterloo, Ontario, underscored the cause of the sociologists‘ tendency to ignore fact when
he noted the influence of Immanuel Kant on the development of sociology. Kant‘s focus on
the internal processes which allow the discernment of truth led sociology to the point of
making the individual more central to truth than the object of truth itself. This neo-positivist
approach was glaringly prevalent in the papers presented by the sociologists.
Charles Harper of Creighton University gave the most explicit expression of the sociologists
disdain for fact. His paper ostensibly addressed the conditions under which cultic
developments are seen as problems. Without citing a single fact about the demonstrated
harms which have been visited upon cult participants, Dr. Harper blithely declared, ―Our
social reality has been re-ordered by the Anti-Cult Movement (ACM) ...Without the ACM
we‘d have cults, but no cult problem.‖ Harper‘s astonishing challenge to deductive reasoning
was carried further by the following statement: ―Social problems are not based on objective
conditions, but on interpretations.‖
Anson Shupe echoed the theme by stating that the ―ACM‖ is devoid of valid concerns. The
American Family Foundation, he charged, ―was only a steppingstone to a growth industry.‖
other viewpoints and analyses, but whom he has excluded from the sample because their
attitudes were deemed pernicious. This is no problem unless we are to generalize from the
attitudes of exit counselors to cult-, and their, converts, in which case, we should also
consider the perceptions of the ―alternate counselors.‖
Respectfully,
Thomas Robbins, Ph.D.
To The Editor:
The University of Nebraska‘s conference, ―Other Realities: New Religions and Revitalization
Movements‖ (March 27-30, 1985), provided a unique opportunity to hear conflicting
arguments on the cult issue. Papers were presented by scholars thought of as apologists for
cults, as well as by critics of the cults. The scholars were mainly sociologists and historians
of religion. A few philosophers were present. As a member of a distinct minority, i.e., those
who oppose the theory and practice of many ―new religions,‖ I found the divergent
approaches intriguing. The sociological and historical papers reflected contradictory views on
what is valid scholarship, what it means to be human, and what is a proper mode for the
ascertainment of truth. The Issues addressed were profound ones. Any summary of the
proceedings will do injustice to the conference‘s tone, level of erudition, and the common
respect displayed among the participants. The following comments reflect one participant‘s
observations.
Sharing a meal with Tom Robbins, one of the more prolific authors in this field, affords a
better view of his humor and perspective than can be gleaned from the intelligence which
marks his published prose. Dr. Robbins seems to be a concerned and honest social
observer. His formal statements, however, display a flawed judgment which one would hope
not to find accompanying such finely honed instincts for intrusions on freedom. An example
can be found in his plenary address on the legal problems posed by new religions. Robbins
claimed that the Constitution presupposes personal autonomy as a universal and constant
reality. This is historically inaccurate. The framers adhered to the view that free will was a
fragile human potential. The Bill of Rights was written to protect this fragility. This subtle,
crucial distinction appears to set sociologists like Dr. Robbins apart from those of us who
tend to be critical of cults. These sociologists appear to begin an examination with sweeping
assumptions that necessarily support the ensuing intellectual framework (―model‖) through
which their conclusions are shaped, and predetermined. Robbins was the least ardent
practitioner of this analytic approach.
Dr. Rodney Sawatsky, who teaches Religion and History at Conrad Greble College in
Waterloo, Ontario, underscored the cause of the sociologists‘ tendency to ignore fact when
he noted the influence of Immanuel Kant on the development of sociology. Kant‘s focus on
the internal processes which allow the discernment of truth led sociology to the point of
making the individual more central to truth than the object of truth itself. This neo-positivist
approach was glaringly prevalent in the papers presented by the sociologists.
Charles Harper of Creighton University gave the most explicit expression of the sociologists
disdain for fact. His paper ostensibly addressed the conditions under which cultic
developments are seen as problems. Without citing a single fact about the demonstrated
harms which have been visited upon cult participants, Dr. Harper blithely declared, ―Our
social reality has been re-ordered by the Anti-Cult Movement (ACM) ...Without the ACM
we‘d have cults, but no cult problem.‖ Harper‘s astonishing challenge to deductive reasoning
was carried further by the following statement: ―Social problems are not based on objective
conditions, but on interpretations.‖
Anson Shupe echoed the theme by stating that the ―ACM‖ is devoid of valid concerns. The
American Family Foundation, he charged, ―was only a steppingstone to a growth industry.‖
