Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 10
This is especially so in the United States, where the "First Amendment" is used to support
all manner of evil exploitation in the name of religion. Anyone who pretends to be religious
or runs something even faintly related to religion is considered virtually outside the law.
The worst aspects of Medieval ecclesiastical policy in Europe has, for all practical purposes,
come back to the United States: the contention that religions are exempted from the claims
of law.
The Scholarly Approach
Research on NRMs has become a force in itself. Sociology of religion, psychology of religion,
history of religion, etc., all share in a general attempt to collect data and clarify, analyze,
and understand the NRMs as factual contemporary expressions of the religious search of
mankind.
In this attempt there is a general tendency to "set the truth question aside," for taking a
stand concerning the truthfulness and reliability of NRMs would impair the "objectivity" and
"neutrality" of the scholarly projects. This scholarly detachment is sometimes taken to an
extreme, so that even value statements must be forsaken. Thus, for some scholars there
seems to be the same value in Catholicism as in Scientology, in the Quakers as in Ananda
Marga.
Is this posture not an expression of naive and positivistic methodology? Is such supposed
neutrality and objectivity anything but a dream?
This dream sometimes turns into a nightmare when the "neutral" and "objective" scholar
turns against the parents‟ organizations and attacks them for going up against the cults.
The simple fact of being against cults and working in anti-cult organizations seems to be
objectionable when seen from the "neutral" and objective" scholars' own presuppositions.
But this sort of scholar is in trouble. In his or her neutrality, the role of an anti-anti-cult
agent takes over the role of the scholar. One cannot uphold neutrality by negating an anti-
attitude. Minus against minus gives a plus, i.e., a factual standpoint --a creed.
The anti-cult movement is in trouble, but the anti-anti cult movement is in even more
serious trouble by its lack of identity. Show me your hand and I shall tell you who you are.
If you have no hand, you are nobody!
Methodologically, this tends towards science for science's own sake, and that is of course
"old hat." Like it or not, scholars too are part of the game. To pretend to stand aside having
no creed of their own is a form of cheating.
Thus, the anti-cult movement and the anti-anti-cult movement seem to have one important
point in common: they will and must evade the truth question. They will not look at creeds,
for that will force them to take up the age-old question: what is truth? To answer that they
would have to take theology seriously. And in their confused cultural state, they seem to
behave as though that were somehow against the First Amendment.
References
Camus, A. (1955). The myth of Sisyphus and other essays. New York: Vintage Books.
Ferguson, M. (1980). The Aquarian conspiracy: Personal and social transformation in the
1980s. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher.
Haastrup, K. (1987). Jordens Folk (The People of the Earth), No. 4.
***************
This is especially so in the United States, where the "First Amendment" is used to support
all manner of evil exploitation in the name of religion. Anyone who pretends to be religious
or runs something even faintly related to religion is considered virtually outside the law.
The worst aspects of Medieval ecclesiastical policy in Europe has, for all practical purposes,
come back to the United States: the contention that religions are exempted from the claims
of law.
The Scholarly Approach
Research on NRMs has become a force in itself. Sociology of religion, psychology of religion,
history of religion, etc., all share in a general attempt to collect data and clarify, analyze,
and understand the NRMs as factual contemporary expressions of the religious search of
mankind.
In this attempt there is a general tendency to "set the truth question aside," for taking a
stand concerning the truthfulness and reliability of NRMs would impair the "objectivity" and
"neutrality" of the scholarly projects. This scholarly detachment is sometimes taken to an
extreme, so that even value statements must be forsaken. Thus, for some scholars there
seems to be the same value in Catholicism as in Scientology, in the Quakers as in Ananda
Marga.
Is this posture not an expression of naive and positivistic methodology? Is such supposed
neutrality and objectivity anything but a dream?
This dream sometimes turns into a nightmare when the "neutral" and "objective" scholar
turns against the parents‟ organizations and attacks them for going up against the cults.
The simple fact of being against cults and working in anti-cult organizations seems to be
objectionable when seen from the "neutral" and objective" scholars' own presuppositions.
But this sort of scholar is in trouble. In his or her neutrality, the role of an anti-anti-cult
agent takes over the role of the scholar. One cannot uphold neutrality by negating an anti-
attitude. Minus against minus gives a plus, i.e., a factual standpoint --a creed.
The anti-cult movement is in trouble, but the anti-anti cult movement is in even more
serious trouble by its lack of identity. Show me your hand and I shall tell you who you are.
If you have no hand, you are nobody!
Methodologically, this tends towards science for science's own sake, and that is of course
"old hat." Like it or not, scholars too are part of the game. To pretend to stand aside having
no creed of their own is a form of cheating.
Thus, the anti-cult movement and the anti-anti-cult movement seem to have one important
point in common: they will and must evade the truth question. They will not look at creeds,
for that will force them to take up the age-old question: what is truth? To answer that they
would have to take theology seriously. And in their confused cultural state, they seem to
behave as though that were somehow against the First Amendment.
References
Camus, A. (1955). The myth of Sisyphus and other essays. New York: Vintage Books.
Ferguson, M. (1980). The Aquarian conspiracy: Personal and social transformation in the
1980s. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher.
Haastrup, K. (1987). Jordens Folk (The People of the Earth), No. 4.
***************
