Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1998, page 46
The ability to leave a cult on one‘s own is not necessarily a sign of health, that is, that the
individual has been unaffected by the group. To say and acknowledge that many people do
leave cults on their own does not address the question of why they leave, or whether they
have been detrimentally affected during the time of their involvement, in spite of the fact
that eventually they are able to walk away. We believe it is a gross error to assume that
those who leave cults on their own are as healthy psychologically and spiritually (or even
physically) as when they joined.
Objection: The Anti-religious Bias of Mind-control Assumptions
The Passantinos‘ next objection is ―the anti-religious bias of mind-control assumptions.‖
Basically the Passantinos say that brainwashing is a value judgment rather than an
analytical concept, and that the brainwashing/mind-control model almost inevitably arises
from or creates an antireligious bias. They quote sociologist Thomas Robbins, who says that
the mind-control model derives from Enlightenment ideals that seek to liberate man from
religion. Then, they quote William Sargant, who argued that Christian evangelical preaching
techniques are similar to Communist brainwashing methods. Finally, they refer to Conway
and Siegelman, who criticized fundamentalist Christians in the first edition of their book
Snapping.
We fail to see, however, what relevance the antireligious sentiments of some authors have
to do with the modern concept of cult mind-control as held in particular by evangelical
proponents of the model. That some people in the field might be biased against religion
does not mean the concept itself is antireligious or necessarily leads to such a bias. Mind-
control theories can apply to a religious setting, a psychotherapy setting, a political setting,
a business setting. Are mind-control advocates, then, antipsychotherapy, antipolitics, and
antibusiness? Are mind-control advocates antimilitary because the concept was first studied
under military conditions? Hardly.
Ron Enroth, well known for his evangelical convictions, cannot be accused of an antireligious
bias when he says there are churches that abuse (Enroth, 1992). Rather, he speaks as a
modern prophet against mistreatment of God‘s flock. Did the prophet Ezekiel have an
antireligious bias when he rebuked the wicked shepherds who were exploiting, harming, and
destroying the people of God? In this section, the Passantinos employ an ad hominem
argument that is rather poorly thought out. If we were to employ this form of reasoning, we
might conclude that the Passantinos are guilty of an ―antisecular‖ bias. It seems that once
again the Passantinos have violated their rule, ―Similar Does Not Prove Same‖ (Passantino &
Passantino, 1991).
The Passantinos also maintain that the inability to draw a clear-cut line between a legitimate
religion and a cult is final proof that mind-control does not exist. Would they use the same
reasoning regarding domestic abuse? When does a husband‘s verbal criticism of his wife
become verbal abuse? When does spanking a child become child abuse? Where are the
clear-cut lines in these cases? Or where is the clear-cut line between political authority and
dictatorship? If the authors can locate it, they will be in great demand all over the world.
The last paragraph of this section is particularly troubling. The Passantinos write, ―In short,
there is no objective, evidential way to define groups that are ‗good‘ (not using mind-
control) versus groups that are ‗bad‘ (using mind-control)‖ (p. 38). But this is simply not
true. A group can be evaluated according to explicit criteria. For example, is it characterized
by the use of certain techniques, like Lifton‘s eight criteria of thought reform? That is, does
it use milieu control, mystical manipulation? Does it have a sacred science? Does it practice
doctrine over person? Does it have a loaded language? Does it have a ―cult of confession,‖
the demand for purity? Does it dispense with the existence of nonmembers, whether
spiritually or physically? One of the most famous books in psychology deals with the open
and the closed mind and how these systems work (Rokeach, 1960). There is a wealth of
The ability to leave a cult on one‘s own is not necessarily a sign of health, that is, that the
individual has been unaffected by the group. To say and acknowledge that many people do
leave cults on their own does not address the question of why they leave, or whether they
have been detrimentally affected during the time of their involvement, in spite of the fact
that eventually they are able to walk away. We believe it is a gross error to assume that
those who leave cults on their own are as healthy psychologically and spiritually (or even
physically) as when they joined.
Objection: The Anti-religious Bias of Mind-control Assumptions
The Passantinos‘ next objection is ―the anti-religious bias of mind-control assumptions.‖
Basically the Passantinos say that brainwashing is a value judgment rather than an
analytical concept, and that the brainwashing/mind-control model almost inevitably arises
from or creates an antireligious bias. They quote sociologist Thomas Robbins, who says that
the mind-control model derives from Enlightenment ideals that seek to liberate man from
religion. Then, they quote William Sargant, who argued that Christian evangelical preaching
techniques are similar to Communist brainwashing methods. Finally, they refer to Conway
and Siegelman, who criticized fundamentalist Christians in the first edition of their book
Snapping.
We fail to see, however, what relevance the antireligious sentiments of some authors have
to do with the modern concept of cult mind-control as held in particular by evangelical
proponents of the model. That some people in the field might be biased against religion
does not mean the concept itself is antireligious or necessarily leads to such a bias. Mind-
control theories can apply to a religious setting, a psychotherapy setting, a political setting,
a business setting. Are mind-control advocates, then, antipsychotherapy, antipolitics, and
antibusiness? Are mind-control advocates antimilitary because the concept was first studied
under military conditions? Hardly.
Ron Enroth, well known for his evangelical convictions, cannot be accused of an antireligious
bias when he says there are churches that abuse (Enroth, 1992). Rather, he speaks as a
modern prophet against mistreatment of God‘s flock. Did the prophet Ezekiel have an
antireligious bias when he rebuked the wicked shepherds who were exploiting, harming, and
destroying the people of God? In this section, the Passantinos employ an ad hominem
argument that is rather poorly thought out. If we were to employ this form of reasoning, we
might conclude that the Passantinos are guilty of an ―antisecular‖ bias. It seems that once
again the Passantinos have violated their rule, ―Similar Does Not Prove Same‖ (Passantino &
Passantino, 1991).
The Passantinos also maintain that the inability to draw a clear-cut line between a legitimate
religion and a cult is final proof that mind-control does not exist. Would they use the same
reasoning regarding domestic abuse? When does a husband‘s verbal criticism of his wife
become verbal abuse? When does spanking a child become child abuse? Where are the
clear-cut lines in these cases? Or where is the clear-cut line between political authority and
dictatorship? If the authors can locate it, they will be in great demand all over the world.
The last paragraph of this section is particularly troubling. The Passantinos write, ―In short,
there is no objective, evidential way to define groups that are ‗good‘ (not using mind-
control) versus groups that are ‗bad‘ (using mind-control)‖ (p. 38). But this is simply not
true. A group can be evaluated according to explicit criteria. For example, is it characterized
by the use of certain techniques, like Lifton‘s eight criteria of thought reform? That is, does
it use milieu control, mystical manipulation? Does it have a sacred science? Does it practice
doctrine over person? Does it have a loaded language? Does it have a ―cult of confession,‖
the demand for purity? Does it dispense with the existence of nonmembers, whether
spiritually or physically? One of the most famous books in psychology deals with the open
and the closed mind and how these systems work (Rokeach, 1960). There is a wealth of
