Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 50
3. the causes of harm
4. the degree to which harm-producing factors operate in specific groups and
5. how to limit harm.
These are all empirical questions that, in theory, may be answered by a well-designed
program of scientific research that would undoubtedly take many years to complete.
Existing research sheds light on these questions, but it doesn‘t provide definitive answers.
Hence, individuals of integrity may make different judgments about aspects of the harm
question. Some, for example, may read the evidence as suggesting a high level of harm,
while others see a low level. Unfortunately, the polarization that has occurred in this field
tends to inhibit communication that would enable interested persons to understand fully
why others draw different conclusions from the same evidence.
The list of consensus actions suggests that panelists recognized that the level of knowledge
and understanding in this field is not as high as it could be. They agreed that more
research is necessary, that the public debate on the subject should be pursued, and that
more international meetings should occur to facilitate information exchange and dialogue.
The panelists also agreed that reform movements and reformers within controversial groups
should be encouraged. This last action recommendation probably reflects participants‘
positive perceptions of another panel discussion at this conference: ―Can Cultic Groups
Change: The Case of ISKCON.‖ This panel discussed the positive changes that have
occurred within ISKCON (the Hare Krishna movement) during the past 10-15 years. The
fact that organizational representatives believe that such reform should be encouraged in
other groups demonstrates that, contrary to the accusations made in some quarters, the
prime motivation of these organizations is a desire to help people who have been hurt and
to prevent harm to others, not blind prejudice against any groups outside the mainstream.
Religious Freedom
Not all cultic groups are religious, so the issue of religious freedom comes into play only for
those that are. But since the majority of controversial groups are religious, the religious
freedom issue must be considered.
Some cult spokespersons and academic sympathizers have implied that accusations of harm
related to cultic groups (new religious movements) are incompatible with respect for
religious freedom. The message seems to be that if one says anything ―bad‖ about new
religious movements, then one is necessarily against religious freedom. This proposition is
patently absurd. Must one be against religious freedom if one criticizes the religiously based
genital mutilation practiced in some countries? Must one be against religious freedom if one
criticizes so-called ―Christian‖ groups that advocate racial purification?
The invocation of ―religious freedom‖ in response to accusations of harm is a ploy designed
to draw attention away from the evidence on which the accusations are based. The issue is
not a simplistic ―harm‖ or ―religious freedom.‖ The issue is reconciling and balancing
competing social values, only one of which is religious freedom. One cannot resolve these
conflicts by denying that they exist, which, for all intents and purposes, occurs when one
becomes so preoccupied with one competing social value that one excludes consideration of
all others. That exclusive social value may be religious freedom, but it may also be harm.
Simplistic and one-dimensional perspectives can arise on both sides of the debate.
Some cult sympathizers are perceived as having made this mistake. Although they may
offer thoughtful criticisms of proposed remedies, they rarely propose alternate solutions to
the problems under discussion. Consequently they are perceived, rightly or wrongly, as
saying, ―what cult problem?‖ Their views, then, tend to be discounted by those who do see
a problem calling for attention. As a result, these sympathizers are effectively removed
from the playing field, that is, from the collective effort to reconcile conflicting values by

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 51
finding remedies that appropriately address harm while simultaneously respecting and
protecting religious freedom and other human rights.
In a similar way, some cult critics are perceived as being so preoccupied with harm that
they will run roughshod over human rights. Some cult sympathizers will tend to see,
perhaps with justification, these cult critics‘ proposed solutions as Trojan horses covering a
hidden repressive agenda or as ―solutions‖ that discount human rights. If the cult
sympathizers are undiscriminating, they will then oppose all proposed solutions and
reinforce the perception that these particular sympathizers say, ―what cult problem?‖
This situation is unfortunate, for even these individuals on opposite extremes of the critic-
sympathizer debate may make some valid and useful points.
It is important to note that different countries have taken different approaches to the
religious freedom issue concerning cults. I am not a legal expert and am not familiar with
the specific situations in different countries, so I speak with some hesitation. I do tend to
agree, however, with a comment made during the panel discussion. This comment stressed
that the issue is not whether or not different democracies affirm human rights (for they do),
but how these diverse countries use their laws to protect those rights and make judgments
designed to reconcile conflicting rights. It was noted that the same U.S. State Department
that has criticized certain European governments on human rights issues related to cults
requires visa applicants to declare, among other things, whether or not they are members
of a communist party. I do not put forth this point in order to advocate any particular
governmental position, but to suggest that we closely examine cultural differences and
political dimensions of the issue before weighing in on one side or another.
Remedies
Potential remedies for the problems posed by cults may be divided into the following
categories:
1. preventing harm before it occurs
2. helping those who have been harmed
3. punishing those who have inflicted harm that is illegal or that results from illegal
acts
4. rebuking those who have inflicted harm that is legal but unethical.
The panelists agreed on actions that cover all four of these categories: prevention,
assistance, law-enforcement, and criticism.
Research is relevant to all categories, for the specifics of what we decide to do rests upon
our knowledge and understanding. The more we know and understand, the more informed
our actions will be.
Panelists agreed that education is central to efforts to prevent harm. Public discussion
through the media and education of professionals (who minister to the public in various
ways) should be encouraged for two reasons: (1) so that those who haven‘t been adversely
affected will be better informed and able to defend themselves, should they belong to or
consider joining a group and (2) so that those who have been affected will learn where to
get help. Young people, who are especially vulnerable, should be taught how to think
critically so that they will be less likely to be seduced by sophistry and/or psychological
manipulation. And reformers within controversial groups should be encouraged and
supported in order to decrease the probability of future harm.
Helping ex-members and families, i.e., those who have been harmed or who have loved
ones who are at risk, is central to most of the organizations‘ missions. AFF, for example,
maintains an Information Service, runs workshops for families and ex-members, and
publishes a number of books, videos, and reports designed to help affected persons.