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.‖

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1 1985, Page 105
Deprogrammers are, ―moral entrepreneurs,‖ who ―perform attitudinal lobotomies.‖ Shupe
also punctuated his talk with nasty asides aimed at Dr. John Clark, Dr. Margaret Singer, and
the ―ACM‖ professionals who, he says, yearn to prolong an unnecessary conflict.
David Bromley‘s paper on the financing of the Unification Church was quite interesting. It
was obvious that Bromley has no love for the UC and believes that their methods have hurt
them. He fell into the same tired mold, however, when he argued that the American concern
over the Moonies is a result of the Church‘s practice of openly building the financial base
before establishing the missionary force. Bromley stressed that the spiritual leaders dictate
policy to the business faction and that this leads to poor decisions. Bromley also stated that
he believes that Transcendental Meditation and Scientology, which sell quasi-religious
practices, grate on us because Americans expect clear distinctions between business and
religion. The truth is that Americans expect honesty, and those who know of these ―church‖
practices find them to be dishonest. Bromley closed by saying that current opposition to the
Unification Church was similar to that once directed at the Roman Catholic Church. No basis
for such an analogy was given.
The Unification Church was also the focus of James Beverly‘s paper. Beverly, a graduate
student in religion at Toronto, gave a powerful argument in defense of proper scholarship.
He noted that the majority of those scholars who have praised Moon have failed to examine
the Church‘s primary source material. He has examined over 5000 documents and has
concluded that the uninformed praise on the part of Herbert Richardson, Frederick Sontag,
and others demeans the academic community, scholarship itself, and the uninformed
members of the UC. Beverly‘s presentation was a forcefully graceful antidote to the lax
arguments of cult apologists.
Prejudices at the expense of the ―ACM‖ were a feature of James Lewis‘s paper on the causes
of post-cult Traumatic Stress Syndrome (TSS). This student of religion says that those who
suffer such symptoms are responding to the stress of their exit process, not the practices of
the cult. Although he allows for differences of intensity stemming from distinctions in the
exit process, Lewis holds to several biases. He doubts the validity of the testimony offered
by those deprogrammed former cultists who now oppose their cult. He believes their
viewpoint is merely the product of conditioning on the part of ―ACM‖ people. But he has no
trouble accepting the views of those who have had unsuccessful attempts at exiting, be they
failed deprogrammings or voluntary efforts to leave followed by a return to and praise of
their cult.
I had the honor of being included on the conference‘s closing panel. Accompanying me
were Anson Shupe, Tom Robbins, U.S. Judge Warren Urbam, and the self-described ―local
Moonie,‖ Reinhard. The panel left a lively impact on the entire conference.
The most important issues which arose during the conference were Tom Robbins‘s call for
more discussions between the ―ACM‖ and the cult ―apologists,‖ Gordon Melton‘s remarking
upon the serious nature of the central issues, and the obvious discrepancies between each
camp‘s view of what constitutes a proper approach to the questions.
As the sole defender of the so-called ―ACM,‖ I agreed with Robbins‘s call for discussion.
Nothing so demystifies an opponent than meeting him in the flesh. The criteria which I feel
have to be met by the pro-cult camp include: a) that they stop their snide and false attacks
on the so-called ―ACM,‖ b) that their scholars stop denying cult-related atrocities and
problems, c) that real scholarship replace their ―model building,‖ d) that deductive
reasoning from objective fact guide their progress to conclusions, and e) that they accept
that if such changes are not forthcoming the respective camps will continue to talk past
each other.