Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1 1985, Page 12
Some New Religions Are Dangerous
Arthur A. Dole, Ph.D.
Steve K. Dubrow Eichel
Abstract
Some researchers allege that new religions and psychotherapy are
functionally equivalent. Yet many new religions differ from psychotherapy in
respect to dangerousness. A survey of expert cult watchers suggests that
documented abuses, not a rival religion or competing psychotherapy,
determine whether a new religion is described as dangerous. In addition, the
trend in psychotherapy is toward increased concern for ethical and
accountable behavior. Finally, the resistance of new religions to impartial and
well designed studies differs sharply from the free inquiry that characterizes
psychotherapy outcome and process research. Without adequate research,
we are forced to rely on the personal testimonies of former new religionists,
many of whom report adverse effects.
In their recent American Psychologist article, Kilbourne and Richardson (1994) present a
spurious case for appreciation of the new religions in a pluralistic society. Their argument
rests on the alleged functional equivalence of psychotherapy with ―...Moonies, Hare
Krishna, Divine Light Mission, The Way, Children of God, etc.‖ (P.239). They Identify six
commonalities but omit or underplay differences. Documented instances of drug smuggling
and weapons stockpiling among the Krishnas (Knutson, 1980
Raid uncovers, 1980), Sun Myung Moon‘s involvement in the manufacturing of munitions
and the United States Congressional Sub-Committee on International Organizations‘
investigation of the Unification Church‘s role in the ―Koreagate‖ scandal (cf. Boettcher &
Freedman, 1980), and the mass suicides/homicides in Jonestown are either not mentioned
or given cursory treatment. The mounting evidence of child abuse and neglect in new
religious groups (Gaines, Wilson, Redican, &Baffi, 1984 Markowitz &Halperin, 1984
Rudin, 1984) is handled in a similar manner. In fact, Kilbourne and Richardson seem to be
castigating critics for being ―soft‖ or ethnocentric in their concern that ―infants and children
may be raised ...without the benefits of middle-class health care and education‖ (P. 247,
emphasis added). It is unclear whether or not they include the practice of ―flirty fishing‖ (a
term first used by Children of God leader David Berg to describe the use of sex to gain
members or influence political figures) when they report the allegation that ―the new
religions sometimes practice strange sexual behaviors.‖ The arrest and conviction of Church
of Scientology leadership on federal conspiracy, as well as numerous other abuses
associated with that group (Schecter, 1980a, 1980b), are also left unmentioned. Many other
serious claims of destructive behaviors and actions do not appear in Kilbourne and
Richardson‘s list of ―allegations (and) threats to the family,‖ while those that do are
summarized in half of one paragraph, and then dismissed in one sentence: ―Even though
these allegations can be refuted by data from studies of new religious groups, the
allegations still persist‖ (p.247).
We maintain that the issue of destructiveness or dangerousness is central to the cult/new
religion debate, and that it is on this dimension that some new religions differ radically from
psychotherapy as practiced by credentialed psychologists. psychiatrists, social workers,
pastoral counselors, and mental health counselors. In support of this opinion, we wish to
share some preliminary results from a series of attitude studies about cults.

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1 1985, Page 13
Survey of Cult Critics
To rank order dangerous practices associated with cults, we employed a variation of the
Delphi technique (Borg &Gall, 1983) with a panel of cult watchers. Our panel, on the
second round, comprised 19 persons, including advisory board members of the American
Family Foundation and selected members of the Citizens Freedom Foundation. The
respondents, who included professional writers, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists,
social workers, theologians, and students, have published about cults and have been active
in educating the public.
Method
We first circulated for rating and criticism a preliminary II! of practices culled from the
published literature about new religions. Our inventory, ―Signs of a Destructive Cult,‖ lists
60 practices. Respondents were asked, ―What distinguishes dangerous cult (religious,
political, or therapeutic) from a benign group? ...How destructive do you think each activity
is in terms of groups in general and as the practice may harm society or group members?‖
In addition, respondents were asked if ―a given practice is destructive under all the
circumstances you can imagine, no circumstances, or In between?‖ Each practice was rated
on a five point scale for extent of destructiveness: 1, constructive 2, neither constructive
nor destructive 3, mildly destructive 4, destructive 5, very destructive. The circumstances
under which each practice was destructive or constructive was also rate on a five point
scale: 1, no circumstances 2, few circum stances 3, some circumstances 4, most
circumstances 5, a] circumstances.
Results
The mean dangerousness rating for all respondents and a] activities was 4.19, with a
standard deviation of .619. The mean circumstances rating for all respondents and all active
ties was 4.25, with a standard deviation of .486. The degree of dangerousness of activities
and the range of circumstances under which they were dangerous was, perhaps not
surprisingly, highly correlated (r =.96). Table I summarize! these findings.
Table I
Summary of Experts‘ Ratings
Min. Max. Mean Stand. Correlt
Value Value Devtn A x B
A. Dangerousness 2.31 5.00 4.19 .619 .956
B. Circumstances 2.83 4.89 4.25 .486
We found that the vast majority of our respondents‘ ratings (44 of the 60 ―dangerous
activities‖ and,,45 of the 60 ―circumstances‖) fell between 4.00 and 5.00. Only I activity
was rated ―neither clearly destructive nor constructive‖ 3 fell somewhere between this
category and ―mildly destructive,‖ while none were rated ―constructive.‖ Similarly, none of
the activities were rated dangerous ―under no circumstances‖ I activity was rated mildly
dangerous ―for a few circumstances,‖ while 4 activities were seen as mildly dangerous or
dangerous ―for some circumstances.‖ Figure I depicts our respondents‘ range of ratings.