Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 6
ethical context. I have heard from a colleague, for example, that some scholars in the
organizational psychology literature advocate the use of ―coercive persuasion‖ techniques in
order to improve organizational performance (I‘m not personally familiar with this
literature). He and I, and probably most of our colleagues in this field, blanch at this notion.
We tend to believe that thought reform, or coercive persuasion, should not be used on
people, regardless of the presumed nobility or usefulness of the goals. Ethically, people
should not be treated in this way.
A special issue of AFF‘s Cultic Studies Journal (Volume 2, Number 2) reported on the
development of an ethical code for the Christian evangelist, a code developed by a team of
evangelicals led by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. A modified version of this code was
adopted by Boston University (and possibly other schools) to guide its religious personnel. I
wish that more religion professionals would look at this code and related work in order to
begin to delineate ethical boundaries for religious influence situations. What is needed is an
ethics casebook, similar to the casebooks developed by professional associations in the
mental health field.
Dr. Benjamin Zablocki has proposed a bill of inalienable rights for intentional communities.
He proposes voluntary guidelines on matters such as the right to leave, to maintain contact
with the outside world, the right to an education, to adequate health access, and the right
to impartial investigation of complaints.
It is important not to confuse ethical objections related to cultic groups with other kinds of
objections. One doesn‘t HAVE to demonstrate harm to justify an ethical criticism of a
behavior or practice. Nor does one HAVE to demonstrate thought reform. Many practices
and behaviors that are not part of a thought reform program can be criticized on ethical
grounds. Similarly, one doesn‘t HAVE to whitewash ethical transgressions simply because
some cult critics unfairly characterize a group as using thought reform. Again, the two
extremes of ―see no evil‖ and ―see nothing but evil‖ miss the long continuum separating
these two poles.
The session on ISKCON will address ethical issues, for the reform group within ISKCON
appears to recognize that some of the organization‘s behaviors and practices need to be
subjected to ethical accountability. The people I have talked with have shown much
interest in the ethical code developed by InterVarsity and in Dr. Zablocki‘s bill of rights.
Recently, the abuse of children in ISKCON, which certainly has profound ethical as well as
psychological and medical implications, has been an issue of great concern. Consider the
following quotes:
As a stigmatized and politically marginal group, householders were left powerless to
assert their parental authority over the lives of their children. Children were abused
in part because they were not valued by leaders, and even, very often, by their own
parents who accepted theological and other justifications offered by the leadership
for remaining uninvolved in the lives of their children. (Rochford &Heinlein, pp. 43-
44)
Over the years any number of estimates have been offered ranging from 20% of all
students who attended an ashram-gurukula suffering some form of abuse, to as
many as 75% of the boys enrolled at the Vrindavan, India, gurukula having been
sexually molested during the late 1970s and early 1980s. (Rochford &Heinlein, p.47)
―I remember dark closets filled with flying dates (large 3 inch flying cockroaches)
and such, while beatings and `no prasadam‘ for dinner became everyday affairs‖
(Rochford &Heinlein, p. 47).
―Seattle was hell because I was only 6 years old, my mom lived in Hawaii and I had
always been a very shy mommy‘s girl. The movement was in its earlier stages and
ethical context. I have heard from a colleague, for example, that some scholars in the
organizational psychology literature advocate the use of ―coercive persuasion‖ techniques in
order to improve organizational performance (I‘m not personally familiar with this
literature). He and I, and probably most of our colleagues in this field, blanch at this notion.
We tend to believe that thought reform, or coercive persuasion, should not be used on
people, regardless of the presumed nobility or usefulness of the goals. Ethically, people
should not be treated in this way.
A special issue of AFF‘s Cultic Studies Journal (Volume 2, Number 2) reported on the
development of an ethical code for the Christian evangelist, a code developed by a team of
evangelicals led by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. A modified version of this code was
adopted by Boston University (and possibly other schools) to guide its religious personnel. I
wish that more religion professionals would look at this code and related work in order to
begin to delineate ethical boundaries for religious influence situations. What is needed is an
ethics casebook, similar to the casebooks developed by professional associations in the
mental health field.
Dr. Benjamin Zablocki has proposed a bill of inalienable rights for intentional communities.
He proposes voluntary guidelines on matters such as the right to leave, to maintain contact
with the outside world, the right to an education, to adequate health access, and the right
to impartial investigation of complaints.
It is important not to confuse ethical objections related to cultic groups with other kinds of
objections. One doesn‘t HAVE to demonstrate harm to justify an ethical criticism of a
behavior or practice. Nor does one HAVE to demonstrate thought reform. Many practices
and behaviors that are not part of a thought reform program can be criticized on ethical
grounds. Similarly, one doesn‘t HAVE to whitewash ethical transgressions simply because
some cult critics unfairly characterize a group as using thought reform. Again, the two
extremes of ―see no evil‖ and ―see nothing but evil‖ miss the long continuum separating
these two poles.
The session on ISKCON will address ethical issues, for the reform group within ISKCON
appears to recognize that some of the organization‘s behaviors and practices need to be
subjected to ethical accountability. The people I have talked with have shown much
interest in the ethical code developed by InterVarsity and in Dr. Zablocki‘s bill of rights.
Recently, the abuse of children in ISKCON, which certainly has profound ethical as well as
psychological and medical implications, has been an issue of great concern. Consider the
following quotes:
As a stigmatized and politically marginal group, householders were left powerless to
assert their parental authority over the lives of their children. Children were abused
in part because they were not valued by leaders, and even, very often, by their own
parents who accepted theological and other justifications offered by the leadership
for remaining uninvolved in the lives of their children. (Rochford &Heinlein, pp. 43-
44)
Over the years any number of estimates have been offered ranging from 20% of all
students who attended an ashram-gurukula suffering some form of abuse, to as
many as 75% of the boys enrolled at the Vrindavan, India, gurukula having been
sexually molested during the late 1970s and early 1980s. (Rochford &Heinlein, p.47)
―I remember dark closets filled with flying dates (large 3 inch flying cockroaches)
and such, while beatings and `no prasadam‘ for dinner became everyday affairs‖
(Rochford &Heinlein, p. 47).
―Seattle was hell because I was only 6 years old, my mom lived in Hawaii and I had
always been a very shy mommy‘s girl. The movement was in its earlier stages and
