Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 91
Who Finances Research on New Religious Movements?
Scientific research is always partial because it is human and hence limited however, one
can well imagine how partial it can be when, as in this case, it is affected by prejudices or
when some suspicions exist even as to its integrity and objectivity. Zablocki says:
With regard to finances, a major obstacle toward the sort of progress desired
is the cloud of secrecy that surrounds the funding of research on NRMs. The
sociology of religion can no longer avoid the unpleasant ethical question of
how to deal with the large sums of money being pumped into the field by the
religious groups being studied and, to a lesser extent, by their opponents.
Whether in the form of subvention of research expenses, subvention of
publications, opportunities to sponsor and attend conferences, or direct fees
for services, this money is not insignificant, and its influence on research
findings and positions taken on scholarly disputes is largely unknown...I know
there will be great resistance to opening this can of worms, but I do not think
there is any choice. This is an issue that is slowly but surely building toward
a public scandal...I am not implying that it is necessarily wrong to accept
funding from interested parties, whether pro or anti, but I do think there
needs to be some more public accounting of where the money is coming from
and what safeguards have been taken to assure that this money is not
interfering with scientific objectivity.18
To provide an example, Zablocki gives some details on the funds he himself used for his
research.19 Some might say that such insinuations are unfounded and are part of a
campaign of defamation against certain scholars. Zablocki, however, bases his statements
also on a document dated December 20, 1989, which he received himself:
I was one of the recipients on the mistaken belief that I would be sympathetic
to the ideas expressed. Even though the email message has been widely
distributed and is famous throughout the discipline, I see no need to
embarass the author by citing his name.20
This message includes an account of
a meeting of a few sociologists of religion in 1989 shortly after an incident
(discussed below) which resulted in their failure to get the American
Sociological Association to endorse a statement to the United States Supreme
Court denying the scientific validity of the brainwashing conjecture.21
In fairness, it should be noted that this memo was prepared by one of the meeting‘s
participants and sent to others, some of whom disagreed with certain points in the memo.
Nevertheless, the tone of the memo and the subject matter of the meeting clearly indicate
that this was not a group of dispassionate scholars seeking truth, but advocates seeking to
promote a point of view that tends to gloss over, if even acknowledge, the destructive
aspects of some new religious movements.
Beit-Hallahmi mentions this same message:
I have before me a piece of evidence which reveals significant collusion
between researchers and NRMs. This is a confidential memorandum, dated
December 20, 1989, and authored by an NRM researcher, who stated that he
was writing on behalf of two other leading researchers, all of them
sociologists. Copies of this document have been circulated by an anti-NRM
group, and its authenticity is beyond any doubt. It is significant that this
document has been sent to a long list of sociologists by email, and has been
cited before. It is embarrassing to refer to a confidential memo written by a

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 92
dear colleague, but no less embarrassing has been the experience of
witnessing dear colleagues act as collaborators and shills for a variety of
masquarading organizations. This document reports on a series of meetings
and activities involving several NRM scholars, NRM attorneys, NRM leaders,
and some other scholars...What is striking is the clear sense in which the
leading members of the NRM research network regarded NRMs as allies, not
subjects of study. It seems that the scholars were more eager than the NRMs
to lead the fight for NRM legitimacy.22
Immediately after, Beit-Hallahmi, quotes a few lines from the email:
Our meetings with the members of the Unification Church confirmed our
earlier impressions that ...their response is very substantially confined to ad
hoc responses to crises. I pressed them on the question of whether it might
be possible for the UC in collaboration with several other NRMs to raise a
significant amount of money --no strings attached --to an independent
group, which in turn, would entertain proposals and fund research on NRMs.
NRMS were less than enthusiastic, the writer thought, and ―The cooperative
funding of the American Conference on Religious Freedom would appear to be
about as far as they are prepared to go at this time‖ (Confidential, 1989, p.
4). In addition to the idea of creating an NRM-funded research
organization...we spent a good deal of time considering whether the time
might be right to import ...INFORM or create a US organization that would
perform a similar function ...INFORM has taken a very significant step in
neutralizing anti-cult movements in the UK (Confidential, 1989, p. 5).23
Beit-Hallahmi then reminds his readers of the foundation in 1992, of AWARE, the
Association of World Academics for Religious Freedom, which includes among its founding
purposes the promotion of the defense of freedom of religion. After a few comments, the
author says: ―In light of what we have witnessed we are forced to re-read, our eyes fresh
with suspicion, the whole corpus of NRM literature.‖ [24]
Conclusion
We would like to finish with the words of our Pastors, who --in their sensitivity for the
spiritual health of their flock --are interested in the new challenge posed by cults, a
challenge typical of our times, and who on May 30, 1993, approved the Pastoral Note of the
Secretariat for Ecumenism and Dialogue of the Italian Bishops‘ Conference. The Bishops,
after listing certain reasons why people join cults and stay in them, say the following:
Other motivations are to be sought in a psychological context. Belonging to a
cult is an easy refuge for people who are psychologically disturbed, who need
a kind of safety which does not demand the price of a personal search.
Sometimes, members of cults are bound by forms of emotional and
psychological coercion, of control and vigilance, so much so that this can lead
to an actual limitation of personal freedom.25
This Pastoral Note also stresses what we believe to be an indisputable reality: that the right
attitude towards the phenomenon of cults must be based on dialogue, ―without falling into
eirenism or sectarianism.‖ The Note goes on to provide pastoral advice that is rich in
opportunities for dialogue, charity, and respect for individuals.
We fully embrace these pastoral instructions, trusting that they will be shared by all men
and women of good will, whatever their religious orientation.