Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1991, Page 44
movement as creating a “new bigotry” and a “cult scare” more offensive than the cults
themselves.19
More importantly, cult sympathizers and their defense attorneys argue cult indoctrination
practices are simple conversion,20 and the brainwashing theory is a kind of witch hunt
designed to eradicate “out-of-the-mainstream faith groups.” Indeed, the recent cases
against cults are most alarming to cult sympathizers as a threat to religious pluralism and
freedom, because damage awards in the millions threaten the wealth and perhaps even the
very existence of the organizations.21 The critics‟ strongest argument, one that requires
careful consideration, is that the First Amendment guarantees these groups immunity from
accountability.22
First Amendment Concerns
Legal scholar Richard Delgado‟s analysis of the potential impact of various forms of
intervention (including legislation and court action) in cult-related matters on the free
exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment23 has been cited by other cult
experts and courts in their decisions. Delgado notes that while the “free exercise” clause of
the First Amendment guarantees that Congress shall make no law prohibiting individuals
from freely pursuing any religion they choose, not everything under the religion umbrella is
protected, however. The law distinguishes between religious belief, which is absolutely
protected,24 and religiously motivated conduct, which is not.25 In this country, an individual
is free to choose his religion,26 and society, particularly the government and the courts,
must treat that belief as an inviolable matter of conscience. Hence, the courts refuse to
address the truth or falsity of doctrines.
Religiously motivated conduct is subject to a balancing test in which the state‟s interest in
regulating or forbidding activity is weighted against the severity of the burden it imposes on
religion. The government must offer sufficient proof of an overriding interest. The religious
group is subject to attack if the belief behind its conduct is found to be insincerely held or if
the conduct is not central to the group‟s belief system.27 Groups whose activities smack of
economic priorities (including fund-raising and roselytizing) are particularly vulnerable to
charges of insincerity.
The over-protection of individuals or groups who practice mind-control techniques in
connection with religious practices may actually frustrate the fundamental values expressed
in the First Amendment. Bending over backwards to protect religious liberty may develop
into a simple license to perpetuate illusion, deception, and exploitation of the unsuspecting.
Delgado finds support from Thomas Jefferson for the theory that the religious liberty clause
was originally intended to protect the freedom of the mind as well as other freedoms:
“Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall
remain.”28 Thus the Jeffersonian view of religious toleration did not contemplate protection
of groups who use destructive persuasion to diminish the psychic autonomy of their
members.
The Molko Case
Three of the most significant cases regarding ex-cult members and their families pursuing
remedies in tort for damages have been decided in California in the last two years. These
cases show that the legal arguments for restricting cult activities are having an impact on
the courts.
In Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn.,29 plaintiffs Molko and Leal, within five months of each other,
were induced to join the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity (the
Moonies) in the usual fashion. While waiting at a bus station, each was approached by
strangers who identified themselves simply as “socially conscious” people with no particular
movement as creating a “new bigotry” and a “cult scare” more offensive than the cults
themselves.19
More importantly, cult sympathizers and their defense attorneys argue cult indoctrination
practices are simple conversion,20 and the brainwashing theory is a kind of witch hunt
designed to eradicate “out-of-the-mainstream faith groups.” Indeed, the recent cases
against cults are most alarming to cult sympathizers as a threat to religious pluralism and
freedom, because damage awards in the millions threaten the wealth and perhaps even the
very existence of the organizations.21 The critics‟ strongest argument, one that requires
careful consideration, is that the First Amendment guarantees these groups immunity from
accountability.22
First Amendment Concerns
Legal scholar Richard Delgado‟s analysis of the potential impact of various forms of
intervention (including legislation and court action) in cult-related matters on the free
exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment23 has been cited by other cult
experts and courts in their decisions. Delgado notes that while the “free exercise” clause of
the First Amendment guarantees that Congress shall make no law prohibiting individuals
from freely pursuing any religion they choose, not everything under the religion umbrella is
protected, however. The law distinguishes between religious belief, which is absolutely
protected,24 and religiously motivated conduct, which is not.25 In this country, an individual
is free to choose his religion,26 and society, particularly the government and the courts,
must treat that belief as an inviolable matter of conscience. Hence, the courts refuse to
address the truth or falsity of doctrines.
Religiously motivated conduct is subject to a balancing test in which the state‟s interest in
regulating or forbidding activity is weighted against the severity of the burden it imposes on
religion. The government must offer sufficient proof of an overriding interest. The religious
group is subject to attack if the belief behind its conduct is found to be insincerely held or if
the conduct is not central to the group‟s belief system.27 Groups whose activities smack of
economic priorities (including fund-raising and roselytizing) are particularly vulnerable to
charges of insincerity.
The over-protection of individuals or groups who practice mind-control techniques in
connection with religious practices may actually frustrate the fundamental values expressed
in the First Amendment. Bending over backwards to protect religious liberty may develop
into a simple license to perpetuate illusion, deception, and exploitation of the unsuspecting.
Delgado finds support from Thomas Jefferson for the theory that the religious liberty clause
was originally intended to protect the freedom of the mind as well as other freedoms:
“Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall
remain.”28 Thus the Jeffersonian view of religious toleration did not contemplate protection
of groups who use destructive persuasion to diminish the psychic autonomy of their
members.
The Molko Case
Three of the most significant cases regarding ex-cult members and their families pursuing
remedies in tort for damages have been decided in California in the last two years. These
cases show that the legal arguments for restricting cult activities are having an impact on
the courts.
In Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn.,29 plaintiffs Molko and Leal, within five months of each other,
were induced to join the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity (the
Moonies) in the usual fashion. While waiting at a bus station, each was approached by
strangers who identified themselves simply as “socially conscious” people with no particular
