From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Opposition to cults and new religious movements (NRMs) comes from several sources with diverse concerns. Most of the opposition are cult watchers that collect and publish critical information about one or several groups they consider cults. Other opposition comes from traditional religion, secular cult critics, the Christian countercult movement, skeptics, and critical former members (sometimes referred to in literature as apostates).

Contents 1 History 2 Cult watching groups 3 Types of opposition 3.1 Traditional religion 3.2 The anti-cult movement 3.3 Critical former members 3.4 Skepticism 4 Opposition to cults: a taxonomy by professor Hadden 4.1 Religious opposition 4.2 Secular opposition 4.3 Apostates 4.4 Entrepreneurial opposition 5 Academic Study 5.1 Reliability of testimony of former members (apostates) 5.2 The APA, Margaret Singer and the brainwashing theories 6 Disputes about "cult apologism" 7 Opposition in the media 8 Scientology's opposition on the Internet 9 See also 10 References 11 Further reading

The modern era of opposition to cults and new religious movements started in the 1960s in the United States.^{[citation needed]} One of the first organized anti-cult groups in the USA was FREECOG founded in 1972 by concerned parents whose children were involved in the Children of God group. Opposition to NRMs and cults grew after the mass suicide of the members of the Peoples Temple at Jonestown in 1978.

See Anti-cult movement and Christian countercult movement for a more detailed treatment of the history of these movements.

Cult watching groups (CWGs) disseminate information about purported cults with the intent of changing public and government perception of them and changing public policy regarding them.

Sociologist Eileen Barker, has identified five types of CWG^[1] :

Barker model

Group Type	Financial sources
cult-awareness groups (CAGs)	Membership dues; govt; trusts; fees
counter-cult groups (CCGs)	Internal to believers; churches; selling literature
research-orientated groups (ROGs)	University research funds; govt; churches; police; trusts
human-rights groups (HRGs)	Larger bodies; NGOs; churches
cult-defender groups (CDGs)	New Religious Movements (directly or indirectly); membership fees

Main article: Christian countercult movement

Some groups associated with traditional religions such as Christianity and Judaism have been formed to counter what they view as heretical cultic versions of their religion, to prevent current followers from joining NRMs, and to convince former members of their religion who have converted to NRMs to return. For example, the Christian countercult movement is concerned about heresy and harm to members of purported cults and society.

Main article: Anti-cult movement

The "Anti-Cult Movement", sometimes abbreviated "ACM", is a term used by some academic scholars to refer to a collectivity of groups and individuals that pursue an opposition to "cults" and some new religious movements. Sociologists David G. Bromley and Anson Shupe initially defined the ACM in 1981 as a collection of groups who embrace brainwashing theory,^[2] but later observed a significant shift in the ideology towards a "medicalization" of the memberships of New Religious Movements (NRM).^[3]

Many opponents of "cults" (e.g., Kropveld^[4]) dispute the usage of the term, and most would prefer the label "cult critics" rather than "anti-cult" activists.^[5] People,^{[attribution needed]} who are considered to partake in the anti-cult movement frequently point out that the various groups and individuals lumped together in this term are too diverse to justify such a label and that the existence of a movement against cults has never been verified by a sociological study on these groups.^{[citation needed]}

For details, see Apostasy in alleged cults and new religious movements

Critical former members of cults or New Religious Movements are sometimes referred as "apostates" by scholars of sociology and religion. Those scholars also use the term "defectors" to identify those former members who are not critical.^[6]

Regarding the appropriateness of the terms "apostate" and "defector", cult critic Michael Langone writes that "Although, strictly speaking, these terms may not have been intended to be value judgments or statistical generalizations about the truth claims of critics (Bromley, 1998), they clearly came to be perceived as such in both camps."^[7]

Critical former members sometimes form loose networks, often with an active presence on the Internet. They voice concern about harm to members of their former group, including wasted time and money, psychological harm, and sometimes physical harm. They watch and criticize their former group and provide information and their perspective to the public they state is not disclosed by these groups, purportedly to enable current and prospective followers to make an informed choice about joining and staying with the group. The motivations of these critical former members, the roles they play in the anti-cult movement, and the validity of their testimony, are highly controversial.

Skeptics are often concerned about what they consider false miracles performed or endorsed by the leadership of the group. They often criticize belief systems which they believe to be irrational.

According to a taxonomy proposed by Professor Jeffrey K. Hadden, from the University of Virginia's Department of Sociology, there are four distinct classes of oppositions to cults.

• Cults viewed as engaging in heresy;
• Their mission is to expose the heresy and correct the beliefs of those who have strayed from "truth";
• Deception rather than possession is the metaphor used;
• Opposition to cults serves two important functions: protects members (especially the youth) from heresy, and increases solidarity among the faithful.

• The autonomy of individuals is professed to be the manifest goal, achievable by getting people out of religious groups;
• The struggle is about control (politics), not about theology;
• Sometimes organized around families who have or have had children involved in a "cult";
• Aim is to disable or destroy the cult or NRM organizationally.

Apostasy: the renunciation of a religious faith. See Apostasy in new religious movements.

• Apostates and those who engage in active opposition to their former faith;
• The anti-cult movement has actively encouraged former members of religious groups to interpret their experience in a "cult" as one of being egregiously wronged and encourages participation in organized anti-cult activities.

• Individuals who take up a cause for personal gain.
• Alliance or coalition to promote their agenda is ad hoc.
• A few entrepreneurs have made careers by creating organized opposition.

The field of cults and new religious movements has been studied by social scientists, sociologists, religious scholars, psychologists and psychiatrists since the early 1980s. The debates about a certain purported cult, and about cults in general, are often polarized with widely divergent opinions, not only among current followers and critical former members, but sometimes even among scholars as well. For example, the American religious scholar J. Gordon Melton holds the view that cults rarely do serious harm and that stories of apostates cannot be relied upon. In correspondence with this view, he went to Japan just after the Aum Shinrikyo's sarin attack to declare that Aum Shinrikyo was innocent.

Academics who are more inclined to see cults as harmful and that apostates' testimonies against cults are generally to be relied upon, are the scholars David C. Lane, Benjamin Zablocki, and Stephen A. Kent. For example, according to Zablocki, cults are at high risk of becoming abusive to members, in part because members' adulation of charismatic leaders contributes to their becoming corrupted by the power they seek and are accorded. Zablocki defines a cult here as an ideological organisation held together by charismatic relationships and demanding total commitment. [2]

All academics, including Melton, agree that some groups have been problematic and sometimes very problematic but they disagree^{[citation needed]} to what extent new religious movements in general are harmful.

See Apostasy for a more detailed treatment of this subject.

There is dispute among academics as to the reliability of the testimonies of critical former members (apostates). Some academics challenge the reliabity of the apostate's testimony. For example Bryan R. Wilson, a professor of Sociology at Oxford University, in a collection of essays he edited in 1981, writes that apostates of new religious movements are generally in need of self-justification, seeking to reconstruct their own past and to excuse their former affiliations, while blaming those who were formerly their closest associates. Wilson introduces the atrocity story that is rehearsed by the apostate to explain how, by manipulation, coercion or deceit, he was recruited to a group that he now condemns.

Other academics find such testimonies of former members to be generally reliable. For example, Benjamin Zablocki, a professor of Sociology at Rutgers University, when analyzing leaver responses found the testimonies of former members as least as reliable as statements from the groups themselves.^[8]

In the early 1980s, some U.S. mental health professionals became controversial figures due to their involvement as expert witnesses in court cases against new religious movements, during which they presented anti-cult theories of brainwashing, mind control, or “coercive persuasion” as generally accepted concepts within the scientific community. The American Psychological Association (APA) in 1983 asked Margaret Singer, one of the most vocal proponents of coercive persuasion theories, to chair a taskforce caled the APA taskforce on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC) to investigate whether brainwashing or "coercive persuasion" did indeed play a role in recruitment by such movements. Before the taskforce had submitted its final report, however, the APA submitted an amicus curiæ brief [3] in an ongoing case. The brief stated that "[t]he methodology of Drs. Singer and Benson has been repudiated by the scientific community", that the hypotheses advanced by Singer were "little more than uninformed speculation, based on skewed data" and that "[t]he coercive persuasion theory ... is not a meaningful scientific concept"[4]. The brief characterized the theory of brainwashing as not scientifically proven. The brief itself suggests the hypothesis that cult recruitment techniques might prove coercive for certain sub-groups, while not affecting others coercively. However, the brief was withdrawn less than two months later [5]. When the DIMPAC report finally appeared in 1987, the APA's Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) rejected it because it "lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur" but that it does "not believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue" [6].

In their Handbook of Cults and Sects in America, Bromley and Hadden present the ideological foundation of the brainwashing theories, and conclude that it lacks scientific support. They argue that the simplistic perspective inherent in the brainwashing metaphor appeals to those attempting to locate an effective social weapon to use against disfavored groups, and that the relative success of such efforts at social control should not detract from the lack of scientific basis for such opinions.

Psychologists, sociologists, many ex-members of purported cults, and most cult critics now agree that the term brainwashing does not properly apply to the recruitment and retention techniques used by the so-called or alleged cults. Given the linguistic/semantic controversy, some cult critics like Steven Hassan, author of the book Combatting Cult Mind Control, started using the term mind control as an alternative label. See also cults and mind control controversies.

Social scientists who study new religious movements, such as Jeffrey K. Hadden (see References), understand the general proposition that religious groups can have considerable influence over their members, and that that influence may have come about through deception and indoctrination. Indeed, many sociologists observe that "influence" occurs ubiquitously in human cultures, and some argue that the influence exerted in "cults" or new religious movements does not differ greatly from the influence present in practically every domain of human action and of human endeavor.

The Association of World Academics for Religious Education, states that "... without the legitimating umbrella of brainwashing ideology, deprogramming -- the practice of kidnapping members of NRMs and destroying their religious faith -- cannot be justified, either legally or morally". The FA.C.T.Net (Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network) no longer considers forcible "deprogramming" to be an acceptable method for helping someone to exit a cult and assert that: "...today professionals often called exit counselors or intervention specialists use methods which are voluntary, in which cult members agree to meet with loved ones and a professional for open and honest discussion over a two to five day period."^[9]

Dr. James Richardson, a Professor of Sociology and Judicial Studies at the University of Nevada, claims that if the NRMs had access to powerful brainwashing techniques, one would expect that NRMs would have high growth rates, while in fact most have not had notable success in recruitment, most adherents participate for only a short time, and that the success in retaining members has been limited. In addition, Tom Robbins, Eileen Barker, Newton Maloney, Massimo Introvigne, John Hall, Lorne Dawson, Anson Shupe, David G. Bromley, Gordon Melton, Marc Galanter, Saul Levine and other scholars researching NRMs have argued -- and established to the satisfaction of courts and relevant professional associations and scientific communities -- that there exists no scientific theory, generally accepted and based upon methodologically sound research, that supports the brainwashing theories as advanced by the anti-cult movement.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) published a statement in 1977 related to brainwashing and mind control. In this statement the ACLU opposed certain methods "depriving people of the free exercise of religion". The ACLU also rejected (under certain conditions) the idea that claims of the use of 'brainwashing' or of 'mind control' should overcome the free exercise of religion.

See Cult Apologist for a more detailed treatment of this subject

Some cult critics, such as Anton Hein, are highly critical of scholars, like Melton, who disagree with their views. Hein uses the word "cult apologist" for them. Those offering such criticism accuse such scholars of being naive, poor scholars and above all they reproach them for not warning people who should be warned, as well as of being funded by the cults themselves. Hein is quoted by Douglas Cowan as writing:^[10]

A cult apologist is someone who consistently or primarily defends the teachings and/or actions of one or more movements considered to be cults—as defined sociologically or theologically . . . Cult apologists generally defend their views by claiming to champion religious freedom and religious tolerance. However, they tend to be particularly intolerant toward those who question and critique the movements they defend.

Scholarly cooperation between these anti cult-activists and scholars accused of being "cult apologists" seems to be virtually non-existent.

In a paper presented to the 2002 Society for the Scientific Study of Religion Conference, Douglas Cowan presents the political, ethical, economic and personal impact of such distinction and the range of opinion about what "cult apologist" means in the context of three basic domains as follows:^[10]

1. The Evangelical Christian countercult: [I]n the context of the evangelical countercult, it seems that one does not actually have to "defend cults" to be labeled a "cult apologist." Rather, in the manner of "the one who is not for us is against us," as a second indicator simply critiquing the critics is sufficient.

1. The secular anti-cult: While the evangelical Christian countercult has very little use for the brainwashing or thought control hypothesis, the secular anticult movement's deployment of "cult apologist" is almost exclusively concerned with maintaining either the viability of that hypothesis or the validity of ex-member testimony as part of its anecdotal mainstay.

1. The secular scholarship: I take it as a simple axiom that we, as a scholarly community, are probably not going to come to consensus on most of these issues. We are not going to agree in our assessments of new and controversial religious movements, and in our own personal scholarly scales, the balance of freedom of religion vs. the potential danger posed by groups or "types of groups" is going to weigh differently.

It is very often the case that the only view the public gets of a new religious movement, controversial group or purported cult is the commonly negative, and often sensationalized reports by the media. One recurring theme, that manifests as opposition to new religious movements, is what some sociologists call negative summary event. In the words of James A. Beckford, negative summary events "[...] refers to the journalistic description of a situation or event in such a way as to capture and express its negative essence as part of an intermittent and slow-moving story. An apparently isolated happening is thereby used as an occasion for keeping the broader, controversial phenomenon in the public mind." James R. Lewis writes in his book Cults in America that the media tend to focus on conflict, which leads to stories which perpetuate the "cult stereotype".^[11]

Larry R. Moffitt, Vice President of the Tiempos del Mundo newspapers (owned by Sun Myung Moon), asserts that after an entire body of believers runs afoul of the law in a dramatic and sensational manner such as the mass suicides at Jonestown, the Branch Davidians and the suicide of the Heaven’s Gate group , "[...] it doesn’t take many of these episodes for the public to view any religion whose founding prophet is currently living, as being of one this dangerous ilk."

Newspaper columnist Cal Thomas makes reference to stereoptypes in journalism dictated by "[...] a raging, unforgiving, imposing, intolerant, arrogant secularism that claims that any idea or authority that comes from a source higher than the mind of humankind is to be a priori overruled as unconstitutional, immoral, illegal and ignorant."

Michael Horowitz, a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC, characterizes the dominant culture as an environment of religious persecution: "Today's elites find it hard to believe that Christians can possibly be the persecuted rather than the persecutors … Believing Christians have been patronized as polyester bigots against whom a modern, thinking, caring culture must protect itself."

In a survey conducted in 1983 by John Dart and Jimmy Allen it was found that an "unhealthy distrust exists between religionists and journalists. Religious figures fear being misunderstood and misrepresented; journalists fear making mistakes and incurring religious wrath.[...] The resulting apprehensions inhibit the free flow of information and only add to misunderstanding."

See Scientology versus the Internet for a more detailed treatment of this subject.

In the mid 1990s, Scientology tried by legal and technical means to close down several critical sites and especially the Usenet news group alt.religion.scientology. This brought them into conflict with service providers and with users who took up the cause of freedom of speech on the Internet. Some of these people, e.g. Karin Spaink, David S. Touretzky, and Ron Newman had a history of free speech activism, but according to Boston Herald journalist Joseph Mallia most of them knew little about Scientology until they were angered by the punitive actions of Scientologists. (Mallia, 1998) During the next years some of the most active critics of Scientology came out of this group, e.g. Andreas Heldal-Lund, Zenon Panoussis, and Keith Henson.

"When the RTC first approached the Court with its ex parte request for the seizure warrant and Temporary Restraining Order, the dispute was presented as a straight-forward one under copyright and trade secret law. However, the Court is now convinced that the primary motivation of RTC in suing Lerma, DGS and The Washington Post is to stifle criticism of Scientology in general and to harass its critics. As the increasingly vitriolic rhetoric of its briefs and oral argument now demonstrates, the RTC appears far more concerned about criticism of Scientology than vindication of its secrets." -- Memorandum Opinion of November 29, 1995, by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, (Religious Technology Center v. Arnaldo Lerma, Washington Post, Mark Fisher, and Richard Leiby)

• Apostasy
• Freedom of religion
• List of authors opposing cults
• Post-cult trauma
• Religious pluralism

1. ^ Eileen Barker, CESNUR 2001, Conference, "A Comparative Analysis of the Roles of Five Types of Cult-Watching Groups", [1].
2. ^ Bromley, David G. and Anson Shupe Strange Gods: The Great American Cult Scare. Boston: Beacon Press, 1981.
3. ^ Shupe, Anson and David G. Bromley. 1994. "The Modern Anti-Cult Movement in North America," pp. 3-32 in Anson Shupe and David G. Bromley Anti-Cult Movements in Cross-Cultural Perspective, New York, NY: Garland, pp. 9-14.
4. ^ Kropveld, Michael: An Example for Controversy: Creating a Model for Reconciliation, Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2 No. 2, 2003.
5. ^ Langone, Michael D.: "Academic Disputes and Dialogue Collection: Preface," ICSA E-Newsletter Vol. 4, No. 3, September 2005.
6. ^ Bromley, D. G., Shupe, A., & Ventimiglia, J. C. (1979). Atrocity tales, the Unification Church and the social construction of evil. Journal of Communication, 29, 42-53.
7. ^ The Two "Camps" of Cultic Studies: Time for a Dialogue Langone (Retrieved Dec 2006)
8. ^ Zablocki 1996 Zablocki, Benjamin, Reliability and validity of apostate accounts in the study of religious communities. Paper presented at the Association for the Sociology of Religion in New York City, Saturday, August 17, 1996.
9. ^ Use of Forced Deprogramming Retrieved Dec 28 2006
10. ^ ^{a b} Cult Apology: A Modest (Typological) Proposal, Douglas E. Cowan, Paper presented to the 2002 Society for the Scientific Study of Religion Conference 'Boundaries and Commitments in NRM Research'", November 2002
11. ^ Lewis, James R. (1998). "Cults and the Media", Cults in America : A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, California, USA: ABC-CLIO, 29. ISBN 978-1-57607-031-4. “"this kind of reporting contributes to the perpetuation of the cult stereotype. ... the marked tendency of the mass media to report on a phenomenon only when it results in conflicts and problems."” 

• Bromley, David G., Ph.D. & Anson Shupe, Ph.D., Public Reaction against New Religious Movements article that appeared in Cults and new religious movements: a report of the Committee on Psychiatry and Religion of the American Psychiatric Association, edited by Marc Galanter, M.D., (1989) ISBN 978-0-89042-212-0
• Hadden, Jeffrey K., The Anti-Cult Movement Available online
• Wilson, Bryan R., Apostates and New Religious Movements, Oxford, England 1994
• Thomas Robbins and Dick Anthony, Cults in the late Twentieth Century in Lippy, Charles H. and Williams, Peter W. (edfs.) Encyclopedia of the American Religious experience. Studies of Traditions and Movements. Charles Scribner's sons, New York (1988) Vol II pp. ISBN 978-0-684-18861-4
• Thomas, Cal, remarks at a conference, Religious Liberty in America: Crossroads or Crisis?, sponsored by the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, March 16-17, 1993
• Horowitz, Michael J., Breaking the Chains Around the Gulags of Faith, acceptance speech on receiving the William Wilberforce Award, February 5, 1997.
• Dart, John and Allen, Jimmy; Bridging the Gap: Religion and the News Media, Freedom Forum First Amendment Center, Vanderbilt University, Sept. 1993
• Beckford, James A., Cult Controversies: The Societal Response to New Religious Movements, London, Tavistock, 1985, p. 235
• Moffitt, Larry R., Media and Religious Intolerance: A Clash of Alien Cultures, Presented at the conference of the International Coalition for Religious Freedom, October 10-12, 1998 – São Paulo, Brazil
• Anthony, Dick. 1990. "Religious Movements and 'Brainwashing' Litigation" in Dick Anthony and Thomas Robbins, In Gods We Trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Excerpt available online
• Hadden, Jeffrey K., The Brainwashing Controversy
• Anthony, Dick, Brainwashing and Totalitarian Influence. An Exploration of Admissibility Criteria for Testimony in Brainwashing Trials, Ph.D. Diss., Berkeley (California): Graduate Theological Union, 1996, p. 165.

Cults v • d • e
Definitions
Client cult · Cult apologist · Cults and governments ·Cult of personality · Cult suicide · Cult-watching group · Destructive cult · Political cult
Lists
Authors opposing cults · In literature and popular culture · Government reports · Groups referred to as cults Politicians opposing cults · Researchers
Organizations
CAN · CESNUR · FACTnet · FREECOG · ICSA · MIVILUDES · Reachout Trust · Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center
Opposition
Anti-Cult Movement · Christian countercult movement · Opposition to cults and new religious movements
Theories / Methodologies
APA Task Force (DIMPAC) · Brainwashing · Cult checklist · Deprogramming · Exit counseling · Mind control · Post-cult trauma
Related
Apostasy · Atrocity story · Bigotry · Charismatic authority · Freedom of Expression · Freedom of religion · Groupthink · Int'l Religious Freedom Act 1998 · Large Group Awareness Training · Minority religion · Occult · Project Megiddo · Religious intolerance · Religious persecution · True-believer syndrome · Witch hunt · Religious freedom by country · Universal Declaration of Human Rights