Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 93
Notes
1. Benjamin Zablocki, “The blacklisting of a concept. the strange history of the
brainwashing conjecture in the sociology of religion,” Nova Religio: The Journal of
Alternative and Emergent Religions, vol. 1, n. 1 (October, 1997), pp. 96-121 (p. 98).
This article was published in October 1997. The second article, a continuation of the
first, was published in April 1998 always in Nova Religio. A reply by D. Bromley and
Zablocki‘s reply to him were also published.
2. Ibid., p. 113.
3. Ibid., Note 17 -p. 117.
4. Ibid., p. 97-98.
5. Ibid., p. 99.
6. Ibid., p. 101.
7. Benjamin Beit Hallahmi, “Dear collegaues: integrity and suspicion in NRM research,”
paper presented at the 1997 annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of
Religion, p. 1.
8. cfr. Ibid.
9. ―American Aum Apologists Not Believed.” Cult Observer, July/August, 1995, p. 10.
(Based on T. R. Reid, “U.S. Visitors Boost Cause of Japanese Cult.” The Washington
Post, May 9, 1995, A8.)
10. M. Introvigne, “Movimenti anti-sette e ricerca scientifica,” in Giovanni Cantoni e M.
Introvigne, Libertà religiosa, “sette” e “diritto di persecuzione, Cristianità, Piacenza
1996, p. 142.
11. Benjamin Zablocki, Ibid., p103.
12. Ibid., p. 103.
13. M. Introvigne, ―Il ritorno dei giacobini: il rapporto della commissione parlamentare belga
d‟inchiesta sulle sette,” 2. Il metodo, CESNUR, 1997. Le retour des Jacobins, Massimo
Introvigne et CESNUR, www.cesnur.org/testi/Belgique.htm.
14. Julien Ries, “Sette e nuovi movimenti religiosi davanti alla Commissione Parlamentare
Belga,” Religioni e Sette nel mondo: Rivista Trimestrale di Cultura Religiosa, Anno 3, n.
2 (giugno 1997), pp. 175-193 (p. 183)
15. Ibid., p. 185-186.
16. Cfr. Ibid., p. 187.
17. cfr. Benjamin Zablocki, Ibid.
18. Ibid., p. 116.
19. Ibid., p. 121. -nota 70.
20.Ibid., p. 118. -nota 29. Ibid., p. 107. This is the well-kown episode of the Amicus brief
(a statement by some scholars who claimed there was no reason to claim that physical
coercion could be replaced by another form of coercion in the process of
―brainwashing‖), first signed and then withdrawn by ASA. An executive officer of ASA
appears to have simply signed the brief, arbitrarily taking the place of the entire ASA,
and delivered it to the Supreme Court (as if ASA had approved it officially) before
discussing it with the Council. He later admitted having made a mistake in good faith,
believing the discussion had already taken place. However there is no trace of this
assumed discussion in his documents. The hurried and secretive nature of these
operations shows something of the atmosphere in the late ‗80s. (Benjamin Zablocki,
personal e-mail communication also asserted in documents submitted to ASA at the
time by Richard Ofshe).
22.Benjamin Beit Hallahmi, Ibid., p. 4.
23.Ibid., p. 4.
24.Ibid., p. 5.
Notes
1. Benjamin Zablocki, “The blacklisting of a concept. the strange history of the
brainwashing conjecture in the sociology of religion,” Nova Religio: The Journal of
Alternative and Emergent Religions, vol. 1, n. 1 (October, 1997), pp. 96-121 (p. 98).
This article was published in October 1997. The second article, a continuation of the
first, was published in April 1998 always in Nova Religio. A reply by D. Bromley and
Zablocki‘s reply to him were also published.
2. Ibid., p. 113.
3. Ibid., Note 17 -p. 117.
4. Ibid., p. 97-98.
5. Ibid., p. 99.
6. Ibid., p. 101.
7. Benjamin Beit Hallahmi, “Dear collegaues: integrity and suspicion in NRM research,”
paper presented at the 1997 annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of
Religion, p. 1.
8. cfr. Ibid.
9. ―American Aum Apologists Not Believed.” Cult Observer, July/August, 1995, p. 10.
(Based on T. R. Reid, “U.S. Visitors Boost Cause of Japanese Cult.” The Washington
Post, May 9, 1995, A8.)
10. M. Introvigne, “Movimenti anti-sette e ricerca scientifica,” in Giovanni Cantoni e M.
Introvigne, Libertà religiosa, “sette” e “diritto di persecuzione, Cristianità, Piacenza
1996, p. 142.
11. Benjamin Zablocki, Ibid., p103.
12. Ibid., p. 103.
13. M. Introvigne, ―Il ritorno dei giacobini: il rapporto della commissione parlamentare belga
d‟inchiesta sulle sette,” 2. Il metodo, CESNUR, 1997. Le retour des Jacobins, Massimo
Introvigne et CESNUR, www.cesnur.org/testi/Belgique.htm.
14. Julien Ries, “Sette e nuovi movimenti religiosi davanti alla Commissione Parlamentare
Belga,” Religioni e Sette nel mondo: Rivista Trimestrale di Cultura Religiosa, Anno 3, n.
2 (giugno 1997), pp. 175-193 (p. 183)
15. Ibid., p. 185-186.
16. Cfr. Ibid., p. 187.
17. cfr. Benjamin Zablocki, Ibid.
18. Ibid., p. 116.
19. Ibid., p. 121. -nota 70.
20.Ibid., p. 118. -nota 29. Ibid., p. 107. This is the well-kown episode of the Amicus brief
(a statement by some scholars who claimed there was no reason to claim that physical
coercion could be replaced by another form of coercion in the process of
―brainwashing‖), first signed and then withdrawn by ASA. An executive officer of ASA
appears to have simply signed the brief, arbitrarily taking the place of the entire ASA,
and delivered it to the Supreme Court (as if ASA had approved it officially) before
discussing it with the Council. He later admitted having made a mistake in good faith,
believing the discussion had already taken place. However there is no trace of this
assumed discussion in his documents. The hurried and secretive nature of these
operations shows something of the atmosphere in the late ‗80s. (Benjamin Zablocki,
personal e-mail communication also asserted in documents submitted to ASA at the
time by Richard Ofshe).
22.Benjamin Beit Hallahmi, Ibid., p. 4.
23.Ibid., p. 4.
24.Ibid., p. 5.


















































































































































