Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1989, Page 31
discussed. Even worse, no definition acceptable to all or most of the
professionals from the various relevant disciplines can be found. An outline of
clusters of characteristics is presented in various publications and studies, which
are supposed to describe the phenomenon as a whole, but in fact not one of
these aggregates of characteristics is applicable, in its entirety, to the new groups
as a whole.
*The composition and resources of the Committee (which is only an examining
committee and not a research team) do not enable it to reach a general,
exhaustive, and encompassing theoretical explanation of the phenomenon, nor a
precise definition or understanding of the general essence of any group this
matter is a topic for research in other frameworks.
Despite these difficulties, which hindered the definition of the of the Committee‟s scope of
action, a number of assumptions were made which served as a starting point:
*A distinction can be made between new groups, which aroused criticism in many
and varied segments of the population (in Israel and throughout the world) and
which appear in most of the mentioned groupings, and new groups which did not
arouse any criticism and appear only in literature dealing with new religions or
new therapeutic methods.
*On the surface there exists a principal common factor characterizing groups
which evoke criticism. In each of these groups there is a disquieting combination
of some sort (an interactive combination unique to each group) of elements or
factors which, even when appearing separately or in other social contexts, are
cause for concern to the public at large, specifically those elements in the
ideology and practices of these groups (such as intolerance, fraud, injury to
health and to personality) which are inconsistent with the common value system
uniting a modern, democratic, heterogeneous society and guiding its systems of
education, law, and mental health.
*It is apparent that the new groups which evoked criticism strive and work
towards maximum expansion. Most of them also maintain a high degree of
secrecy, blur their identity, and claim to have a secret “know-how” which cannot
be understood without experiencing it.
Relying on these assumptions the Committee decided to include new groups in its
examination according to the following principles:
1. New groups bearing a pseudo-religious, pseudo-therapeutic orientation which evoked
criticism in diverse segments of the population, and in which a disquieting combination
of factors apparently exists as mentioned above (irrespective of whether or not they are
called “cults” or are characterized by what is called “oriental mysticism”). This is
conditional upon the fact that these groups are particularly active in Israel or their
international activity has direct influence on Israeli citizens.
2. Particularly groups as stated in paragraph (1) above, on which one or more of the
following apparently exist:
*They have a high concentration of disquieting factors
*The disquieting factors are characterized by extreme radicalism.
*The combination unique to them (an exclusive combination) may contribute to
comprehension of the phenomenon in general.
discussed. Even worse, no definition acceptable to all or most of the
professionals from the various relevant disciplines can be found. An outline of
clusters of characteristics is presented in various publications and studies, which
are supposed to describe the phenomenon as a whole, but in fact not one of
these aggregates of characteristics is applicable, in its entirety, to the new groups
as a whole.
*The composition and resources of the Committee (which is only an examining
committee and not a research team) do not enable it to reach a general,
exhaustive, and encompassing theoretical explanation of the phenomenon, nor a
precise definition or understanding of the general essence of any group this
matter is a topic for research in other frameworks.
Despite these difficulties, which hindered the definition of the of the Committee‟s scope of
action, a number of assumptions were made which served as a starting point:
*A distinction can be made between new groups, which aroused criticism in many
and varied segments of the population (in Israel and throughout the world) and
which appear in most of the mentioned groupings, and new groups which did not
arouse any criticism and appear only in literature dealing with new religions or
new therapeutic methods.
*On the surface there exists a principal common factor characterizing groups
which evoke criticism. In each of these groups there is a disquieting combination
of some sort (an interactive combination unique to each group) of elements or
factors which, even when appearing separately or in other social contexts, are
cause for concern to the public at large, specifically those elements in the
ideology and practices of these groups (such as intolerance, fraud, injury to
health and to personality) which are inconsistent with the common value system
uniting a modern, democratic, heterogeneous society and guiding its systems of
education, law, and mental health.
*It is apparent that the new groups which evoked criticism strive and work
towards maximum expansion. Most of them also maintain a high degree of
secrecy, blur their identity, and claim to have a secret “know-how” which cannot
be understood without experiencing it.
Relying on these assumptions the Committee decided to include new groups in its
examination according to the following principles:
1. New groups bearing a pseudo-religious, pseudo-therapeutic orientation which evoked
criticism in diverse segments of the population, and in which a disquieting combination
of factors apparently exists as mentioned above (irrespective of whether or not they are
called “cults” or are characterized by what is called “oriental mysticism”). This is
conditional upon the fact that these groups are particularly active in Israel or their
international activity has direct influence on Israeli citizens.
2. Particularly groups as stated in paragraph (1) above, on which one or more of the
following apparently exist:
*They have a high concentration of disquieting factors
*The disquieting factors are characterized by extreme radicalism.
*The combination unique to them (an exclusive combination) may contribute to
comprehension of the phenomenon in general.
