Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 48
 Increase legal recourse for families and compensation for ex-members
 Apply criminal law
 Get information about groups
 Understand dynamics between groups and society
 Investigate charity law create a national registry of all religious groups
 Create a special forum for families and ex-members to talk
 Learn from other organizations dealing with trauma
 Put more effort into differentiating among groups
 Educate youth in general critical thinking and discernment skills -not just about cults
 Invest time and money to develop curricula for faith communities, schools, and other
groups.
 Continue to meet together share ideas
 Be present on WWW and address untruths on other sites
 Study the problem
 Provide education on comparative religion in schools
 Adequate training for professionals e.g., law enforcement, mental health, clergy,
seminarians.
 More exchange more information between our groups
 Study cultural differences in why people join cults in different countries
 Have a discussion on the price of democracy and what it takes to maintain it
 Dialogue between groups and society
 Take immediate action against unlawful activity
 Introduce a systematic method of collecting data
 Reach an international consensus on manipulation as a continuous scale with cults on an
extreme
 Reward openness and honesty with privileges
 Punish criminality
 Treat as a matter of public health human rights
 Create a government body of religious affairs run by academics
 Diagnosis of individuals who have been harmed
 Educate medical professionals
 More behavioral research
 Respect differences between country approaches to the problem and between society
and the groups
 Encourage and facilitate more debate
 Review libel laws to see if they inhibit debate
 Persuade more clergy to come to conferences
 Create a catalogue of helping organizations and resources
 Educate media representatives so they get it right
 List cases and judgments on cults in all countries
 Persuade media to become more interested in the issue
Consensus Actions
After the brainstorming session, panelists grouped individual items in broader categories
and put aside items on which there was disagreement. The discussion that followed the
brainstorming session included much more information than can be shared here. I will
incorporate some of the discussion points in my commentary below. (Contact AFF if you
would like to obtain a video of the discussion.)
All participants endorsed the following actions. Although this list of actions reflects a
consensus of the participants, it should be kept in mind that participants might disagree on
precisely what these items mean, how to prioritize them, and how to implement them.
These issues are left to future discussions.

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 49
 Conduct more research
 Provide education on critical thinking
 List and examine laws, policies, and legal cases in various countries
 Continue to have international meetings
 Enforce existing laws
 Work more effectively with the media
 Help families and ex-members
 Encourage reform and reformers
 Encourage public debate
 Educate professionals
Commentary
The cult problem has three significant dimensions: harm, religious freedom, and remedies.
Harm
Harm in this context may be psychological (e.g., depression induced states of
dependency), economic (e.g., being tricked into giving one‘s inheritance to a group),
physical (e.g., medical neglect of children rape or other sexual abuse), educational (e.g., a
child raised in a group that doesn‘t allow him to learn basic educational skills), spiritual
(e.g., losing one‘s pre-group religious faith in reaction to disillusionment concerning a leader
one formerly deemed to be ―God‘s anointed‖), or legal (e.g., having one‘s basic human
rights abrogated by the dictates or manipulations of an autocratic leader).
Although some cult spokespersons and sympathizers may argue that cultic environments do
not harm people, many, whether sympathizers or critics, would probably agree with the
following proposition: Some groups under some conditions harm some people
sometimes. To argue that groups never harm people contradicts incontrovertible evidence
(e.g., Aum Shinrikyo, Solar Temple, Jonestown) and implies that, unless one holds the
absurd belief that no group ever harmed any individual, some special factor immunizes cults
(or ―new religious movements‖) against those group dynamics that may cause harm. Why
―new religious movements‖ should be so uniquely immune to the potential for harm that
exists in all groups is a question that seems never to be addressed, probably because no
plausible defense could be made of such a privileged position for ―new religious
movements.‖
Some might ask why single out cults if they are subject to the same kinds of dynamics as
other groups. There are three vital differences that justify paying special attention to cults.
First, abundant evidence indicates that harm is more prevalent and/or more serious in some
groups (e.g., Aum Shinrikyo) than in contemporary mainstream religions or other
established organizations in democratic societies. Second, the harms most commonly
associated with mainstream religions and other established organizations (e.g., the problem
of sexual abuse of children) tend to reflect individual pathology, not an abusive social
structure. Third, mainstream religions and other established organizations have had the
time to develop accountability mechanisms that tend to come into play, however belatedly,
when abuse occurs. Although, these accountability mechanisms are by no means perfect,
they do afford a measure of protection to society. Cults, on the other hand, have usually
not had enough time and/or motivation to develop accountability mechanisms. Those that
have done so or are in the process of doing so (ISKCON being a notable example) should be
studied closely, for an increased understanding of this process may make it easier to
persuade other controversial groups to follow along this path.
Any debate on the question of harm, then, should focus not on whether it occurs, but on:
1. the nature of the harm
2. the prevalence of harm, within and across groups