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.
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.
