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
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
