Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1992, Page 73
themselves to become politicized. Parents had not offered true guidance to their children who
were therefore obliged to turn to avant-garde religious sects for spiritual nourishment. Those
bodies destroyed individualism and substituted indoctrination for teaching. Young people
needed access to factual and unbiased information when dealing with religious groups. Groups
which had hitherto promoted Marxist beliefs had moved into the realm of esoteric religious
creeds. There were worrying signs of a growth in unorthodox religious practices. In Germany
evidence had been found of mutilated animal corpses, the aftermath of Black Masses.
Mr. Stoffelen (Netherlands) congratulated the Rapporteurs for their excellent work. Freedom
of religious choice was a basic human right enshrined in Article 9 of the Convention of Human
Rights. There was a danger of condemning out of hand emerging religious movements, and
labeling them with such pejorative epithets as "sects." Nevertheless, the Church should
operate within the law.
Mr. Rowe (United Kingdom): Thank you, Mr. President. I am particularly pleased to follow
my friend Peter Stoffelen on this matter. I entirely agree with much of what he said although
I wonder whether I would draw the line between what is acceptable and what is not in quite
the same place.
The problem with the subject so excellently covered by Sir John's report is that, by definition,
it is "my church" and "your sect." We tend to judge others by a different standard from that
which we apply to ourselves. One general rule for people considering this matter is to ask
whether the founders or gurus of a sect are rich. If they are, it is almost certainly unsound.
One of the striking features of the religions that have endured is that their founders were poor
and had sympathy with the poor.
The problem which the committee was asked to consider is consumer-led. Or perhaps it is
even more a problem of the consumer's family. Families become anxious when one of their
members gets caught up in some sect of which they disapprove. As the report says: "While a
religion implies free, informed consent on the part of those who join it, people joining certain
sects may be free when they join it, but are not informed, and, once they are informed, they
are usually no longer free." That is an important point.
As all the speakers so far have said, the public law must be the principal touchstone. Human
rights legislation is meaningless if it does not prevent exploitation, whether of sect members
or sect staff. Being a member of a sect cannot of itself be an excuse for lawbreaking without
being subject to the consequences of that lawbreaking.
There is always a possible conflict between human rights and the rights of the family and the
individual. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that Christ himself said: "I have come to
set a man against his father and a daughter against her mother and a daughter-in-law
against her mother-in-law and a man's foes will be those of his own household." However one
interprets that, it is clear that those who find a focus for their loyalty outside the family will
not always be particularly popular with the family, and we should be erring if we made it too
easy for families to impose their particular form of obligation on family members who have
taken an open decision not to conform.
Therefore, another touchstone must be openness rather than stealth. The report is right about
that. We should know as much as possible. Those whose deeds are evil love the dark. Sects
which are not prepared to come out into the open are judged as highly suspect by their own
action. Therefore, I welcome the report's emphasis on information.
I am worried about registration. The report itself said that the committee did not seek
evidence from some sects because it was concerned that in so doing it might give the
authority of the Council of Europe to those sects. Demanding registration would put the
committee into exactly that difficulty again.
themselves to become politicized. Parents had not offered true guidance to their children who
were therefore obliged to turn to avant-garde religious sects for spiritual nourishment. Those
bodies destroyed individualism and substituted indoctrination for teaching. Young people
needed access to factual and unbiased information when dealing with religious groups. Groups
which had hitherto promoted Marxist beliefs had moved into the realm of esoteric religious
creeds. There were worrying signs of a growth in unorthodox religious practices. In Germany
evidence had been found of mutilated animal corpses, the aftermath of Black Masses.
Mr. Stoffelen (Netherlands) congratulated the Rapporteurs for their excellent work. Freedom
of religious choice was a basic human right enshrined in Article 9 of the Convention of Human
Rights. There was a danger of condemning out of hand emerging religious movements, and
labeling them with such pejorative epithets as "sects." Nevertheless, the Church should
operate within the law.
Mr. Rowe (United Kingdom): Thank you, Mr. President. I am particularly pleased to follow
my friend Peter Stoffelen on this matter. I entirely agree with much of what he said although
I wonder whether I would draw the line between what is acceptable and what is not in quite
the same place.
The problem with the subject so excellently covered by Sir John's report is that, by definition,
it is "my church" and "your sect." We tend to judge others by a different standard from that
which we apply to ourselves. One general rule for people considering this matter is to ask
whether the founders or gurus of a sect are rich. If they are, it is almost certainly unsound.
One of the striking features of the religions that have endured is that their founders were poor
and had sympathy with the poor.
The problem which the committee was asked to consider is consumer-led. Or perhaps it is
even more a problem of the consumer's family. Families become anxious when one of their
members gets caught up in some sect of which they disapprove. As the report says: "While a
religion implies free, informed consent on the part of those who join it, people joining certain
sects may be free when they join it, but are not informed, and, once they are informed, they
are usually no longer free." That is an important point.
As all the speakers so far have said, the public law must be the principal touchstone. Human
rights legislation is meaningless if it does not prevent exploitation, whether of sect members
or sect staff. Being a member of a sect cannot of itself be an excuse for lawbreaking without
being subject to the consequences of that lawbreaking.
There is always a possible conflict between human rights and the rights of the family and the
individual. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that Christ himself said: "I have come to
set a man against his father and a daughter against her mother and a daughter-in-law
against her mother-in-law and a man's foes will be those of his own household." However one
interprets that, it is clear that those who find a focus for their loyalty outside the family will
not always be particularly popular with the family, and we should be erring if we made it too
easy for families to impose their particular form of obligation on family members who have
taken an open decision not to conform.
Therefore, another touchstone must be openness rather than stealth. The report is right about
that. We should know as much as possible. Those whose deeds are evil love the dark. Sects
which are not prepared to come out into the open are judged as highly suspect by their own
action. Therefore, I welcome the report's emphasis on information.
I am worried about registration. The report itself said that the committee did not seek
evidence from some sects because it was concerned that in so doing it might give the
authority of the Council of Europe to those sects. Demanding registration would put the
committee into exactly that difficulty again.
