Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 23
Cults, Freedom of Belief, and Freedom of Religion
Denis Barthelemy
Appeals Court of Versailles
Abstract
Definitional confusion surrounding the term ―cult‖ is examined in order to
better understand the religious freedom controversy over public and private
responses to cultic groups. It is argued that democratic societies distinguish
between freedom of belief, an individual freedom, and freedom of religion, a
collective freedom. When they overemphasize the latter, governments
undermine democracy by subordinating individual citizens to groups.
This paper seeks to advance understanding of the cult phenomenon by examining
definitional issues and the relationship of the cult phenomenon to two important and distinct
freedoms, that of conscience and of religion.
Definitional Issues
When talking with someone who doesn‘t give the same meaning to the words used, you
can‘t agree with him, because both of you use the same words in a different meaning. So
you both don‘t mean the same things. Hence, when you are talking with someone, first of
all, you both have to agree on the meaning of the words you are going to use. The first
question should be: ―What are we talking about?‖
With the many languages in Europe, we are well aware of this problem. For example, the
word ―cult‖ in English and the word ―culte‖ in French have not the same meaning. ―Culte‖ in
French means mainly ―religion.‖ But there are some ―cultes‖ that are not exactly religious.
Appropriate translation of the English word, ―cult,‖ into French is mostly ―secte.‖ But in
English the word ―sect‖ has another meaning.
To take another example, in personal conversations at least one sociologist of religion
acknowledged to me that murder is an illegal practice, even if perpetrated by what he calls
a ―new religion.‖ But he maintains that ritual crimes may not be ―illegal practices‖ because
they are religious crimes. How, then, do we classify sexual abuse, child abuse, disabled
person abuse, corruption, economic and financial offences? Do practices normally
considered to be crimes cease to be crimes because a religious group is the perpetrator? It
hardly seems sensible to answer this question affirmatively, yet that is precisely what some
seem to advocate.
Such defenses of cultic groups sometimes seem like psychological manipulations designed
to advance a hidden agenda, namely to protect the capacity of cult leaders to pursue their
agendas unhindered. On this subject I recommend a book written by the Frenchman Paul
Aries: La Scientologie, laboratoire du futur (Ed. Golias, Lyon, France). If one is not clear on
the definitions that competing parties use in this dispute, then one will be less prepared to
recognize and respond to the linguistic and psychological manipulations of some cult
sympathizers.
Freedom of Belief and Freedom of Religion
I often say to my younger colleagues: ―Before talking about a law, read it, again and again,
each time you need to apply that law, for you may think you know it, but the true and exact
meaning may be forgotten or mistakenly remembered, especially when somebody else
(e.g., a lawyer) argues on the subject.‖ In this cult arena it is important to reexamine, in
the light of international conventions, precisely what we mean by ―freedom of belief‖ and
―freedom of religion.‖
Cults, Freedom of Belief, and Freedom of Religion
Denis Barthelemy
Appeals Court of Versailles
Abstract
Definitional confusion surrounding the term ―cult‖ is examined in order to
better understand the religious freedom controversy over public and private
responses to cultic groups. It is argued that democratic societies distinguish
between freedom of belief, an individual freedom, and freedom of religion, a
collective freedom. When they overemphasize the latter, governments
undermine democracy by subordinating individual citizens to groups.
This paper seeks to advance understanding of the cult phenomenon by examining
definitional issues and the relationship of the cult phenomenon to two important and distinct
freedoms, that of conscience and of religion.
Definitional Issues
When talking with someone who doesn‘t give the same meaning to the words used, you
can‘t agree with him, because both of you use the same words in a different meaning. So
you both don‘t mean the same things. Hence, when you are talking with someone, first of
all, you both have to agree on the meaning of the words you are going to use. The first
question should be: ―What are we talking about?‖
With the many languages in Europe, we are well aware of this problem. For example, the
word ―cult‖ in English and the word ―culte‖ in French have not the same meaning. ―Culte‖ in
French means mainly ―religion.‖ But there are some ―cultes‖ that are not exactly religious.
Appropriate translation of the English word, ―cult,‖ into French is mostly ―secte.‖ But in
English the word ―sect‖ has another meaning.
To take another example, in personal conversations at least one sociologist of religion
acknowledged to me that murder is an illegal practice, even if perpetrated by what he calls
a ―new religion.‖ But he maintains that ritual crimes may not be ―illegal practices‖ because
they are religious crimes. How, then, do we classify sexual abuse, child abuse, disabled
person abuse, corruption, economic and financial offences? Do practices normally
considered to be crimes cease to be crimes because a religious group is the perpetrator? It
hardly seems sensible to answer this question affirmatively, yet that is precisely what some
seem to advocate.
Such defenses of cultic groups sometimes seem like psychological manipulations designed
to advance a hidden agenda, namely to protect the capacity of cult leaders to pursue their
agendas unhindered. On this subject I recommend a book written by the Frenchman Paul
Aries: La Scientologie, laboratoire du futur (Ed. Golias, Lyon, France). If one is not clear on
the definitions that competing parties use in this dispute, then one will be less prepared to
recognize and respond to the linguistic and psychological manipulations of some cult
sympathizers.
Freedom of Belief and Freedom of Religion
I often say to my younger colleagues: ―Before talking about a law, read it, again and again,
each time you need to apply that law, for you may think you know it, but the true and exact
meaning may be forgotten or mistakenly remembered, especially when somebody else
(e.g., a lawyer) argues on the subject.‖ In this cult arena it is important to reexamine, in
the light of international conventions, precisely what we mean by ―freedom of belief‖ and
―freedom of religion.‖
