Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 52
Panelists strongly agreed that existing laws should be enforced and were generally open to
the possibility that new laws be considered, though caution should be observed.
Although the panelists did not explicitly advocate category 4 (rebuking those who inflict
harm that is legal but unethical), their discussion implied an endorsement of this remedy.
One of the primary functions of public discussion of this issue is to criticize questionable
practices of controversial groups. Although such criticism may not penetrate the defensive
boundaries of some groups, it may have a positive effect on other groups (e.g., where there
is even a nascent reform movement or some mechanisms for accountability). Criticism,
however, should be presented respectfully, discerningly, and forcefully when appropriate.
Blanket condemnations of groups tend not to contain much useful information. Specific,
detailed, and nuanced criticisms, on the other hand, can be useful to all parties, including
those who are sincerely interested in reforming their groups.
In my view it is vital to distinguish between criticism of unethical but legal practices and
punishment of illegal practices. For example, most people in democratic societies would
probably agree that it is unethical for a religious group to lie about its identity in order to
persuade nonmembers to come to a function aimed at recruiting them. Most people would
probably also agree that criticism of such deception is warranted, if not obligatory. But such
deception, however reprehensible, is not necessarily illegal (although it may be depending
upon its nature and effects and the legal traditions of the country in which it occurs). The
law may sometimes tolerate a certain level of deception because outlawing ―micro-harms‖
may have unintended effects that are more harmful than the ―micro-harm‖ that is outlawed.
Consequently, arguing against an overreaching legal proposal does not necessarily mean
that one is against all legal controls, for one may believe ethical criticism is more
appropriate than legal restraint in that particular instance. Nor does advocacy of legal
controls in some cases mean that one believes that legal control to right all perceived
wrongs is always called for. Again, the issue is not either-or. It is a complex process of
balancing competing rights and social values.
Unfortunately, the polarization of views that has occurred in this field magnifies suspicions
among the participants. It sometimes seems that views are so polarized that people in the
two ―camps‖ do not communicate, even when they talk to each other. Moreover, they rarely
appear to read materials put out by the other ―camp.‖ This informational isolation
diminishes the understanding of both ―camps.‖ Cult sympathizers do not appreciate the
evidence attesting to the nature and magnitude of harm, which means that their
understanding of their chosen field of study, i.e., new religious movements, contains a large
blind spot. Cult critics do not benefit from the scholarship and research produced in the so-
called sympathizer camp, which means that their proposed remedies may be based on
incomplete information.
If the dialogue and open exchange of information advocated by the panelists continues to
occur, then proposals about what should be done about cults will be more likely to be fair,
informed, and effective.
Organizations and Panelists
AFF (American Family Foundation, Naples, Florida)
Herbert L. Rosedale, Esq., President of AFF, is a senior counselor in the law firm of
Jenkins &Gilchrist Parker Chapin in New York City. He has written several articles
on cults and the law, contributed a chapter to Recovery from Cults, and is co-editor
of The Boston Movement: Critical Perspectives on the International Churches of
Christ.
David Bardin, Esq., is the chair of AFF‘s legal committee and its Washington
counsel.
Panelists strongly agreed that existing laws should be enforced and were generally open to
the possibility that new laws be considered, though caution should be observed.
Although the panelists did not explicitly advocate category 4 (rebuking those who inflict
harm that is legal but unethical), their discussion implied an endorsement of this remedy.
One of the primary functions of public discussion of this issue is to criticize questionable
practices of controversial groups. Although such criticism may not penetrate the defensive
boundaries of some groups, it may have a positive effect on other groups (e.g., where there
is even a nascent reform movement or some mechanisms for accountability). Criticism,
however, should be presented respectfully, discerningly, and forcefully when appropriate.
Blanket condemnations of groups tend not to contain much useful information. Specific,
detailed, and nuanced criticisms, on the other hand, can be useful to all parties, including
those who are sincerely interested in reforming their groups.
In my view it is vital to distinguish between criticism of unethical but legal practices and
punishment of illegal practices. For example, most people in democratic societies would
probably agree that it is unethical for a religious group to lie about its identity in order to
persuade nonmembers to come to a function aimed at recruiting them. Most people would
probably also agree that criticism of such deception is warranted, if not obligatory. But such
deception, however reprehensible, is not necessarily illegal (although it may be depending
upon its nature and effects and the legal traditions of the country in which it occurs). The
law may sometimes tolerate a certain level of deception because outlawing ―micro-harms‖
may have unintended effects that are more harmful than the ―micro-harm‖ that is outlawed.
Consequently, arguing against an overreaching legal proposal does not necessarily mean
that one is against all legal controls, for one may believe ethical criticism is more
appropriate than legal restraint in that particular instance. Nor does advocacy of legal
controls in some cases mean that one believes that legal control to right all perceived
wrongs is always called for. Again, the issue is not either-or. It is a complex process of
balancing competing rights and social values.
Unfortunately, the polarization of views that has occurred in this field magnifies suspicions
among the participants. It sometimes seems that views are so polarized that people in the
two ―camps‖ do not communicate, even when they talk to each other. Moreover, they rarely
appear to read materials put out by the other ―camp.‖ This informational isolation
diminishes the understanding of both ―camps.‖ Cult sympathizers do not appreciate the
evidence attesting to the nature and magnitude of harm, which means that their
understanding of their chosen field of study, i.e., new religious movements, contains a large
blind spot. Cult critics do not benefit from the scholarship and research produced in the so-
called sympathizer camp, which means that their proposed remedies may be based on
incomplete information.
If the dialogue and open exchange of information advocated by the panelists continues to
occur, then proposals about what should be done about cults will be more likely to be fair,
informed, and effective.
Organizations and Panelists
AFF (American Family Foundation, Naples, Florida)
Herbert L. Rosedale, Esq., President of AFF, is a senior counselor in the law firm of
Jenkins &Gilchrist Parker Chapin in New York City. He has written several articles
on cults and the law, contributed a chapter to Recovery from Cults, and is co-editor
of The Boston Movement: Critical Perspectives on the International Churches of
Christ.
David Bardin, Esq., is the chair of AFF‘s legal committee and its Washington
counsel.
