Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1998, page 40
on the basis of lies? In what sense is such a person truly responsible for his or her
decisions?
We are reminded of several biblical passages. While hanging on the cross, Jesus said,
―Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do‖ (Luke 23:34). Jesus also said, ―That
slave who knew his master‘s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, shall
receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a
flogging, will receive but few‖ (Luke 12:47-48a, New American Standard Bible see also Mt.
11:20-24). In other words, the moral responsibility taught in the Scriptures is based on how
much one knows. If one has been deceived, if one has been pressured, if one has been
denied access to information, or if the truth has been made to seem like a lie, then either
one is held completely guiltless or regarded as only partly culpable. We have yet to meet
one person in 12 years of working in this field full-time who says, ―I knew what I was doing
I knew I was joining a cult. I knew it was wrong, but I did it anyway.‖
That is exactly what the Passantinos are attempting to force the ex-cult member to admit:
―I knew it was wrong.‖ But if the ex-cult member denies that he knew it was wrong, the
Passantinos are faced with the unfortunate dilemma of saying, ―Either you are lying or
you‘re deceived.‖ It is difficult to accuse tens of thousands of cult members from hundreds,
if not thousands, of groups of lying. So, the Passantinos must conclude that at least some of
these ex-members were deceived. Acknowledging the diminished, though not nullified,
moral responsibility of these ex-members would be consistent with common sense and
Scripture. However, in many cases the deceit is so cleverly contrived and engineered that
only God himself could see the intrigue. But it seems that the Passantinos are so single-
minded in their desire to discredit the mind-control model that they turn it into a vulnerable
all-or-nothing straw man that compels them to advocate an all-or-nothing view of human
culpability, at least with regard to cults. In our view, their position is unbiblical and unkind.
The Passantinos‘ position, by way of extrapolation, would hold, as do some New Age
trainings, every battered wife responsible for ending up married to an abusive husband. To
be consistent, the Passantinos would have to argue that these women knew what they were
getting into. The senior author [PRM] of this article has explained the dynamics of thought
reform to hundreds of former cult members and asked them, ―Did you know that this was
what your group was doing when you decided to join?‖ The ex-members have all answered,
―No.‖ They are then asked, ―Would you have joined if you knew they practiced thought
reform?‖ Again their answers were all ―No.‖
The Passantinos‘ assertion that there is no diminished responsibility without the gun-at-the-
head, straw man view of mind-control that they advance runs counter to biblical and legal
traditions of fraud. Lack of knowledge has, throughout the history of law, been used to
reduce a person‘s culpability, and the same is true in the case of cultic deception and mind-
control. It seems to us that the Passantinos have confused bearing responsibility with facing
consequences. An investor who is conned into committing resources to a fraudulent
enterprise must face the consequence that those resources may never be recovered. The
investor is in every sense a victim of the con, even if in hindsight one can identify events or
choices that may have adumbrated the coming con. It is, however, not the investor but the
con artist who is morally and legally responsible for the investor‘s flawed decision.
In the current legal climate, a con artist who cheats investors out of money faces prison,
fines, and/or court-ordered restitution yet, a cult leader who precipitates wrongful death by
discouraging or prohibiting medical care on the basis of false or misleading information
faces no legal penalty. It seems that the Passantinos support this unfortunate state of
affairs and would absolve the cult leader of his or her responsibility, laying it completely at
the feet of the follower. The injustice of the present legal system, we hope, will eventually
on the basis of lies? In what sense is such a person truly responsible for his or her
decisions?
We are reminded of several biblical passages. While hanging on the cross, Jesus said,
―Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do‖ (Luke 23:34). Jesus also said, ―That
slave who knew his master‘s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, shall
receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a
flogging, will receive but few‖ (Luke 12:47-48a, New American Standard Bible see also Mt.
11:20-24). In other words, the moral responsibility taught in the Scriptures is based on how
much one knows. If one has been deceived, if one has been pressured, if one has been
denied access to information, or if the truth has been made to seem like a lie, then either
one is held completely guiltless or regarded as only partly culpable. We have yet to meet
one person in 12 years of working in this field full-time who says, ―I knew what I was doing
I knew I was joining a cult. I knew it was wrong, but I did it anyway.‖
That is exactly what the Passantinos are attempting to force the ex-cult member to admit:
―I knew it was wrong.‖ But if the ex-cult member denies that he knew it was wrong, the
Passantinos are faced with the unfortunate dilemma of saying, ―Either you are lying or
you‘re deceived.‖ It is difficult to accuse tens of thousands of cult members from hundreds,
if not thousands, of groups of lying. So, the Passantinos must conclude that at least some of
these ex-members were deceived. Acknowledging the diminished, though not nullified,
moral responsibility of these ex-members would be consistent with common sense and
Scripture. However, in many cases the deceit is so cleverly contrived and engineered that
only God himself could see the intrigue. But it seems that the Passantinos are so single-
minded in their desire to discredit the mind-control model that they turn it into a vulnerable
all-or-nothing straw man that compels them to advocate an all-or-nothing view of human
culpability, at least with regard to cults. In our view, their position is unbiblical and unkind.
The Passantinos‘ position, by way of extrapolation, would hold, as do some New Age
trainings, every battered wife responsible for ending up married to an abusive husband. To
be consistent, the Passantinos would have to argue that these women knew what they were
getting into. The senior author [PRM] of this article has explained the dynamics of thought
reform to hundreds of former cult members and asked them, ―Did you know that this was
what your group was doing when you decided to join?‖ The ex-members have all answered,
―No.‖ They are then asked, ―Would you have joined if you knew they practiced thought
reform?‖ Again their answers were all ―No.‖
The Passantinos‘ assertion that there is no diminished responsibility without the gun-at-the-
head, straw man view of mind-control that they advance runs counter to biblical and legal
traditions of fraud. Lack of knowledge has, throughout the history of law, been used to
reduce a person‘s culpability, and the same is true in the case of cultic deception and mind-
control. It seems to us that the Passantinos have confused bearing responsibility with facing
consequences. An investor who is conned into committing resources to a fraudulent
enterprise must face the consequence that those resources may never be recovered. The
investor is in every sense a victim of the con, even if in hindsight one can identify events or
choices that may have adumbrated the coming con. It is, however, not the investor but the
con artist who is morally and legally responsible for the investor‘s flawed decision.
In the current legal climate, a con artist who cheats investors out of money faces prison,
fines, and/or court-ordered restitution yet, a cult leader who precipitates wrongful death by
discouraging or prohibiting medical care on the basis of false or misleading information
faces no legal penalty. It seems that the Passantinos support this unfortunate state of
affairs and would absolve the cult leader of his or her responsibility, laying it completely at
the feet of the follower. The injustice of the present legal system, we hope, will eventually
