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
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
