Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1991, Page 18
hence to some extent defuse criticism of their behavior and impede prosecution of their law-
breaking.131
In May 1984, the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Freedom, which includes prominent
religious leaders such as Harvard University Professor of Divinity Harvey Cox, sponsored a
rally in Washington, D.C. to protest the U.S. Supreme Court‟s refusal to review Moon‟s
appeal for his conviction on tax fraud.132 In June it sponsored a rally in Boston to protest
governmental intrusion into religion at which former Senator and Presidential candidate
Eugene McCarthy was the keynote speaker.133 Just hours after Moon‟s release from his
eighteen-month prison term served for tax fraud in August of 1985, several groups,
including some connected to the Unification Church, sponsored a banquet in Washington
with approximately 1,700 religious leaders in attendance --nearly half of whom, it was
estimated, were black --at which Moon was “hailed as a hero and a martyr.”134 Moral
Majority‟s Jerry Falwell and Joseph Lowery, President of the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference, expressed alarm at the rate of growth of church-state legal cases and predicted
a “devastating” impact should Moon‟s tax conviction set a precedent “which allows the
government to intrude into internal religious affairs so deeply that the First Amendment
rights of churches everywhere have been severely damaged.”135 While claiming to disagree
with the Unification Church theology, Lowery maintained, “If you are for religious freedom
for anybody, you have to be for religious freedom for everybody…I do uphold his right to
worship and fund the affairs of the church without interference from the government.”136
Hence, out of a desire to protect their own groups and out of legitimate concerns for First
Amendment issues, some religious leaders have bolstered cults‟ attempts to improve their
public self-images. While fully sensitive to the freedom of religion issues, cult critics see this
support by mainstream religious leaders as being “pro-cult.” They assert that these leaders
have inadvertently helped cults attain their goals of greater acceptance as mainstream
religious groups and have helped blur the already often-thin line between cults and
mainstream religions.
Disagreements About Cults Will Continue
This dispute is just one example of the lively discussion the cult phenomenon has
engendered among religious leaders as well as in the general public. It is also an example of
the complex nature of the interrelationships between cults and mainstream religions and of
the diverse effects cults have had on Western mainstream religions and religious leaders.
These interrelationships and effects have been both practical and ideological, both positive
and negative. Mainstream religious leaders, fearing the alleged abuses and excesses of cults
can negatively affect them and can disrupt the precious balance of church and state, have
scrutinized their own behavior and attempted to correct it where necessary to avoid both
moral and legal consequences. The loss of membership to cultic groups has caused
mainstream religious leaders to question themselves, to reassess their educational
programs, and to try to offer their members more emotional satisfaction, needed services,
and a sense of loving community.
While some religious leaders may disagree about how dangerous cults really are and what
their responses to them --if any --should be, all agree these groups are here to stay, that
they are a permanent factor on the world religious scene. As cults continue to grow and
change, so too will the complex interaction between cults and mainstream religious groups
continue to grow and change.
Notes
1. For purposes of simplicity --with full awareness of the negative connotation of the
word “cult” --the writers will use this term in the discussion.
hence to some extent defuse criticism of their behavior and impede prosecution of their law-
breaking.131
In May 1984, the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Freedom, which includes prominent
religious leaders such as Harvard University Professor of Divinity Harvey Cox, sponsored a
rally in Washington, D.C. to protest the U.S. Supreme Court‟s refusal to review Moon‟s
appeal for his conviction on tax fraud.132 In June it sponsored a rally in Boston to protest
governmental intrusion into religion at which former Senator and Presidential candidate
Eugene McCarthy was the keynote speaker.133 Just hours after Moon‟s release from his
eighteen-month prison term served for tax fraud in August of 1985, several groups,
including some connected to the Unification Church, sponsored a banquet in Washington
with approximately 1,700 religious leaders in attendance --nearly half of whom, it was
estimated, were black --at which Moon was “hailed as a hero and a martyr.”134 Moral
Majority‟s Jerry Falwell and Joseph Lowery, President of the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference, expressed alarm at the rate of growth of church-state legal cases and predicted
a “devastating” impact should Moon‟s tax conviction set a precedent “which allows the
government to intrude into internal religious affairs so deeply that the First Amendment
rights of churches everywhere have been severely damaged.”135 While claiming to disagree
with the Unification Church theology, Lowery maintained, “If you are for religious freedom
for anybody, you have to be for religious freedom for everybody…I do uphold his right to
worship and fund the affairs of the church without interference from the government.”136
Hence, out of a desire to protect their own groups and out of legitimate concerns for First
Amendment issues, some religious leaders have bolstered cults‟ attempts to improve their
public self-images. While fully sensitive to the freedom of religion issues, cult critics see this
support by mainstream religious leaders as being “pro-cult.” They assert that these leaders
have inadvertently helped cults attain their goals of greater acceptance as mainstream
religious groups and have helped blur the already often-thin line between cults and
mainstream religions.
Disagreements About Cults Will Continue
This dispute is just one example of the lively discussion the cult phenomenon has
engendered among religious leaders as well as in the general public. It is also an example of
the complex nature of the interrelationships between cults and mainstream religions and of
the diverse effects cults have had on Western mainstream religions and religious leaders.
These interrelationships and effects have been both practical and ideological, both positive
and negative. Mainstream religious leaders, fearing the alleged abuses and excesses of cults
can negatively affect them and can disrupt the precious balance of church and state, have
scrutinized their own behavior and attempted to correct it where necessary to avoid both
moral and legal consequences. The loss of membership to cultic groups has caused
mainstream religious leaders to question themselves, to reassess their educational
programs, and to try to offer their members more emotional satisfaction, needed services,
and a sense of loving community.
While some religious leaders may disagree about how dangerous cults really are and what
their responses to them --if any --should be, all agree these groups are here to stay, that
they are a permanent factor on the world religious scene. As cults continue to grow and
change, so too will the complex interaction between cults and mainstream religious groups
continue to grow and change.
Notes
1. For purposes of simplicity --with full awareness of the negative connotation of the
word “cult” --the writers will use this term in the discussion.
