|
|
| (71 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{claimed}} | + | {{Images OK}}{{submitted}}{{approved}}{{copyedited}} |
| − | A '''cult''' strictly speaking, is a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies. Used in a more pejorative sense, '''cult''' refers to a cohesive social group, usually of a religious believers, which the surrounding society considers outside the mainstream or possibly dangerous. In Europe, the term "sect" is often used to describe "cults" in this sense.
| + | [[Image:Jonestown Houses.jpg|thumb|250px|Jonestown, Guyana, site of the Peoples Temple massacre in 1984]] |
| | | | |
| − | During the twentieth century groups referred to as "cults" or "sects" by governments and media became globally controversial. The rise and fall of several groups known for mass suicide and murder tarred hundreds of new religious groups of various characters, some arguably quite benign. | + | A '''cult,''' strictly speaking, is a particular system of religious [[worship]], especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. Used in a more pejorative sense, cult refers to a cohesive social group, usually of a religious believers, which the surrounding society considers outside the mainstream or possibly dangerous. In [[Europe]], the term "[[sect]]" is often used to describe "cults" in this sense. |
| | + | |
| | + | During the twentieth century, groups referred to as "cults" or "sects" by governments and media became globally controversial. The rise and fall of several groups known for mass [[suicide]] and murder tarred hundreds of new religious groups of various characters, some arguably quite benign. Charges of "[[mind control]]," economic exploitation, and other forms of a abuse are routinely levied against "cults." However, scholars point out that each group is unique, and generalizations often do a disservice to the understanding of any particular group. |
| | + | {{toc}} |
| | + | Controversy exists among sociologists of religion as to whether the term "cult" should be abandoned in favor of the more neutral "[[new religious movement]]." A great deal of literature has been produced on the subject, the objectivity of which is hotly debated. |
| | | | |
| | ==Definitions== | | ==Definitions== |
| − | The literal and traditional meaning of the word ''cult'' is derived from the [[Latin]] ''cultus,'' meaning "care" or "adoration."<ref>[[Merriam-Webster]] Online Dictionary entry for ''cult'' [http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=cult&]</ref> Sociologists and historians of religion speak of the "cult" of the Virgin Mary or other traditions of worship in a neutral sense.
| + | Etymologically, the word cult comes from the root of the word culture, representing the core system of beliefs and activities at the basis of a culture. Thus, every human being belongs to a "cult" in its most general sense, because everyone belongs to a culture which is conveyed by the language they speak and the habits they have formed. |
| − | | |
| − | With regard to the more negative meaning of the term, most religions start out as "cults" or sects, i.e. relatively small groups in high tension with the surrounding society. For example, Christianity was originally a sect within Judaism and the Roman Empire which faced difficulties because of its belief in Jesus as the Messiah and its rejection of Roman pagan tradition. Over time, such groups tend to either die out or become more established, mainstream, and in less tension with society.<ref>Stark, Rodney and Bainbridge, Willia S. ''A Theory of Religion," Rutgers University Press, ISBN 0-8135-2330-3</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Due to popular connotations of the term "cult," many academic researchers of [[religion]] and [[sociology]] prefer to use the term ''[[new religious movement]]'' (NRM). Such new religions are usually started by [[charismatic authority|charismatic]] but unpredictable leaders. If they survive past the first or second generation, they tend to institutionalize, become more stable, find a greater degree of acceptance in society, and sometimes become the mainstream or dominant religious group.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Genuine concerns and exaggerations about "cults"===
| |
| − | Some critics of media sensationalism argue that the stigma surrounding the classification of a group as a cult results largely from exaggerated portrayals of weirdness in media stories. The narratives of ill effects include perceived threats presented by a cult to its members, and risks to the ''physical'' safety of its members and to their mental and ''spiritual'' growth.
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Anti-Cult Movement|Anti-cultists]] in the 1970s and 1980s made heavy accusations regarding the harm and danger of cults for members, their families, and societies. The debate at that time was intense and was sometimes called the ''cult debate'' or ''cult wars''.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Much of the action taken against cults has been in reaction to the real or perceived harm experienced by some members.
| |
| | | | |
| − | ====Documented crimes====
| + | [[Image:OurLady.jpg|thumb|150px|The traditional use of the word "cult" refers to any tradition of religious worship, such as the cult of the Virgin Mary in Catholicism.]] |
| − | [[Image:Jim Jones brochure of Peoples Temple.jpg|thumb|200px|Brochure of the [[Peoples Temple]], portraying its founder [[Jim Jones]] as the loving father of the "Rainbow Family".]] | + | The literal and traditional meaning of the word ''cult'' is derived from the [[Latin]] ''cultus,'' meaning "care" or "adoration." Sociologists and historians of religion speak of the "cult" of the [[Virgin Mary]] or other traditions of worship in a neutral sense. |
| | | | |
| − | Certain groups that have been characterized as cults, such as [[Heaven's Gate (cult)|Heaven's Gate]], [[Order of the Solar Temple|Ordre du Temple Solaire]], [[Aum Shinrikyo]], the [[Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God]] in Uganda, the [[Church of the Lamb of God]] of [[Ervil LeBaron]], and the [[Peoples Temple]] have posed or are seen as potentially posing a threat to the well-being and lives of their own members and to society in general. These organizations are often referred to as ''doomsday cults'' or ''[[destructive cult]]''s by the media. According to John R. Hall, a professor in sociology at the [[University of California-Davis]] and Philip Schuyler, the Peoples Temple is still seen by some as ''the'' cultus classicus<ref>Hall, John R. and Philip Schuyler (1998), ''Apostasy, Apocalypse, and religious violence: An Exploratory comparison of Peoples Temple, the Branch Davidians, and the Solar Temple'', in the book ''The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements'' edited by David G. Bromley Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, (1998). ISBN 0-275-95508-7, page 145 "The tendency to treat Peoples Temple as the ''cultus classicus'' headed by Jim Jones, psychotic megaliomanic par excellence is still with us, like most myths, because it has a grain of truth to it. "</ref><sup>,</sup><ref>McLemee, Scott ''Rethinking Jonestown '' on the [[salon.com]] website "If Jones' People's Temple wasn't a cult, then the term has no meaning."</ref>, though it did not belong to the set of groups that triggered the cult controversy in United States in the 1970s. Its mass suicide of over 900 members on November 18, 1978 led to increased concern about cults. Other groups include the [[Colonia Dignidad]] cult (a German group settled in Chile) that served as a torture center for the Chilean government during the Pinochet dictatorship.
| + | Among the formal definitions of "cult" are: |
| | | | |
| − | In 1984, a [[Bioterrorism|bioterrorist attack]] involving [[salmonella]] typhimurium contamination in the salad bars of 10 restaurants in [[The Dalles, Oregon|The Dalles]], [[Oregon]] was traced to the [[Rajneesh|Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh/Osho]] group.<ref>[http://www.wbur.org/special/specialcoverage/feature_bio.asp Bioterrorism in History - 1984: Rajneesh Cult Attacks Local Salad Bar], ''[[WBUR]]''</ref><ref>[http://www.rickross.org/reference/rajneesh/rajneesh8.html AP The Associated Press/October 19 2001</ref> The attack sickened about 751 people and hospitalized forty-five, although none died. It was the first known bioterrorist attack of the 20th century in the United States, and is still known as the largest germ warfare attack in U.S history. Eventually Sheela and Ma Anand Puja, one of Sheela's close associates, confessed to the attack as well as to attempted poisonings of county officials. The BW incident is used by the Homeland Defense Business Unit in Biological Incidents Operations training for Law Enforcement agencies.{{PDFlink|[http://www.edgewood.army.mil/hld/dl/ecbc_le_bio_guide.pdf]|934 [[Kibibyte|KiB]]<!-- application/pdf, 957019 bytes —>}}
| + | * A particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies. |
| | + | * An instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: The physical fitness cult. |
| | + | * A group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, and so on. |
| | + | * In [[Sociology]]: A group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols. |
| | + | * A religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.<ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult Cult,] Dictionary.com. Retrieved August 23, 2008.</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | The [[Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway]] in 1995 was carried out by members of [[Aum Shinrikyo]], a religious group founded in 1984 by [[Shoko Asahara]]. Aum Shinrikyo had a laboratory in 1990 where they cultured and experimented with [[botulin toxin]], [[anthrax]], [[cholera]] and [[Q fever]]. In 1993 they traveled to Africa to learn about and bring back samples of the [[Ebola]] virus.[http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol5no4/olson.htm] | + | Most religions start out as "cults" or sects in the sense of the pejorative use of the term, that is, relatively small groups in high tension with the surrounding society. The classical example is [[Christianity]]. When it began, it was a minority system of beliefs and controversial practices such as [[holy communion]]. When it was a small "cult" or a minority group in the empire, it was often criticized by those who did not understand it or who were threatened by changes its adoption might mean. Rumors were spread by detractors about Christians drinking human blood and eating human flesh. However, when it became an official state religion and widely accepted, its practices informed activities of the culture as a whole. |
| | + | When a new religion becomes a large or dominant in a society the "cult" basically becomes "culture."<ref>Peter L. Berger, ''The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion'' (New York: Doubleday Anchor Books 1969), 29-51.</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | Warren Jeffs, of Hildale, Utah, the polygamist sect leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is currently charged with two counts of rape as an accomplice in the spiritual marriage of a 14-year-old girl to her 19-year-old cousin in 2001. Jeffs also faces felony sex charges in Arizona for his alleged role in two underage marriages, and was under federal indictment for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution as of March 2007.[http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/28/polygamist.leader.ap/index.html]
| + | In this sense, "cult" may be seen as a pejorative term, something akin to calling someone a "[[barbarian]]." It represents a type of in-group/out-group terminology designed to exclude one group by calling them less human or inferior. Over time, such groups tend either die to out or become more established and in less tension with society.<ref>Stark, 1996.</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | [[Edward Morrissey]], husband of [[Mary Manin Morrissey|Rev. Mary Manin Morrissey]], in 2005 pled guilty to [[money laundering]] and using [[Living Enrichment Center]] church money for the personal expenses of himself and his wife. Edward Morrissey spent two years in federal prison..<ref>[http://www.koin.com/Global/story.asp?s=6615206 KOIN 6 News] Retrieved June 7, 2007</ref><ref>http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/stories/index.ssf?/base/news/1181267788141050.xml&coll=7</ref><ref>[http://www.wilsonvillenews.com/WVSNews8.shtml Wilsonville Spokesman: Morrissey to meet with LEC 'refugees'] Retrieved June 9, 2007</ref> | + | Due to popular connotations of the term "cult," many academic researchers of [[religion]] and [[sociology]] prefer to use the term ''[[new religious movement]]'' (NRM). Such new religions are usually started by [[charismatic authority|charismatic]] but unpredictable leaders. If they survive past the first or second generation, they tend to institutionalize, become more stable, find a greater degree of acceptance in society, and sometimes become a mainstream or even dominant religious group. |
| | | | |
| − | ====Prevalence of doomsday or destructive cults====
| + | In Europe, the term "sect" tends to carry a connotation similar to the word "cult" in the U.S. |
| − | It has been noted that despite the emphasis on "doomsday cults" by the media, the number of groups in this category is approximately ten, compared with the tens of thousands of new religious movements which are estimated to exist.<ref>[[Eileen Barker|Barker, E.]] (1984), ''[[The Making of a Moonie]]'', p.147, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. ISBN 0-631-13246-5</ref> (including groups that are psychologically destructive but not extremely violent or doomsday-oriented).
| |
| | | | |
| − | Of the groups that have been characterized as cults in the United States alone, only a hundred or so have ever become notorious for alleged misdeeds either in the national media or in local media. Some writers have argued that the disproportionate focus on these groups gives the public an inaccurate perception of new religious groups generally.{{Fact|date=July 2007}}
| + | ==Controversies about "cults"== |
| | + | By one measure, between 3,000 and 5,000 purported "cults" existed in the [[United States]] in 1995.<ref>Singer, 2003. |
| | + | </ref> [[Anti-Cult Movement|Anti-cult]] groups in the 1970s and 80s, overly comprised of families of NRM members who objected to the newfound faith of their relative, made particularly strong accusations regarding the threat of "dangerous cults." Among the allegations levied against these groups were "brainwashing," the separation of members from their families, food and sleep deprivation, economic exploitation, and potential harm to the larger society. Some families took desperate measures to force "cult" members back into traditional faiths or a secular way of life. This led to the so-called "[[deprogramming]]" controversy, in which thousands of young adults were forcibly kidnapped and held against their will by paid agents of family members in an effort to get them to renounce their groups. Media sensationalism fueled the controversy, as did court battles which pitted expert witnesses against each other in such fields as [[sociology]] and [[psychology]]. |
| | | | |
| − | ====Potential harm to members====
| + | [[Image:Aum-members.jpg|thumb|The Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attacks created renewed concern about destructive cults.]] |
| − | In the opinion of [[Benjamin Zablocki]], a professor of Sociology at [[Rutgers University]], groups that have been characterized as cults are at high risk of becoming abusive to members. He states that this is in part due to members' adulation of [[charismatic authority|charismatic]] leaders contributing to the leaders becoming corrupted by power. Zablocki defines a cult here as an ideological organization held together by charismatic relationships and that demands total commitment.<ref>Dr. Zablocki, Benjamin [http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~zablocki/] Paper presented to a conference, ''Cults: Theory and Treatment Issues'', May 31 1997 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.</ref>
| |
| | | | |
| − | There is no reliable, generally accepted way to determine which groups will harm their members. In an attempt to predict the probability of harm, [[cult checklist]]s have been created, primarily by anti-cultists, for this purpose.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} <!-- Odd to call Bonewits, for instance, and anti-cultist, in that he was trying to promote his NRM, not all checklists are from anti-cultists!—!> <!-- Rephrased; hope it's better. —> According to critics of these checklists, they are popular but not scientific.
| + | Certain groups that have been characterized as cults have clearly posed a threat to the well-being and lives of their own members and to society in general. For example, the mass [[suicide]] of over 900 [[People's Temple]] members on November 18, 1978, led to increased concern about "cults." The [[sarin]] gas attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995, carried out by members of [[Aum Shinrikyo]], renewed this concern, as did several other violent acts—both self-destructive and against society—by other groups. The number of violently destructive groups, however, is extremely small compared with the literally tens of thousands of new religious movements which are estimated to exist.<ref>Barker, 1984.</ref> Thus, relatively harmless groups found themselves associated with the violent self-destructive "cult" actions in which they had no part. |
| | | | |
| − | According to Barrett, the most common accusation made against groups referred to as cults is [[sexual abuse]]. See [[Cult#Criticism by former members of purported cults|some allegations made by former members]]. According to Kranenborg, some groups are risky when they advise their members not to use regular medical care.<ref>Kranenborg, Reender Dr. (Dutch language) ''Sekten... gevaarlijk of niet?/Cults... dangerous or not?'' published in the magazine ''Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland/Religious movements in the Netherlands'' nr. 31 ''Sekten II'' by the [[Vrije Universiteit|Free university Amsterdam]] (1996) ISSN 0169-7374 ISBN 90-5383-426-5</ref> Barker, Barrett, and [[Steven Hassan]] all advise seeking information from various sources about a certain group before getting deeply involved, though these three differ in the urgency they suggest.
| + | Today, some well-known NRM's remain suspect to the general public. Examples include [[Scientology]], the [[Unification Church]], and the [[Hare Krishnas]]. Each of these groups is now well into its second or third generation, but it is often difficult to distinguish between a group's public image—which may have become fixed decades earlier—and its current practices. Earlier "cults," such as the [[Mormon Church|Mormons]], [[Jehovah's Witnesses]], [[Seventh Day Adventist]]s, and [[Christian Scientists]], are now generally considered part of the mainstream religious fabric of the American society in which they originated. |
| | | | |
| − | ====Other controversial groups====
| + | Although the majority of "cults" are religious in nature, a small number of non-religious groups are classified as as "cults" by their opponents. These may include political, psychotherapeutic or [[multi-level marketing|marketing]] groups. The term has also been applied to certain human-potential and self-improvement organizations. |
| − | Other groups, while not universally condemned, remain suspect to the general public; this is the case with [[Scientology]] and to a lesser extent, the [[Unification Church]] and the [[Hare Krishnas]]. A problem in casually examining such high-profile groups is to distinguish between a group's public image (which may have become fixed decades earlier) and the group's current practices. This is often a focus for empirical studies by social scientists. These issues arise especially for groups whose founders have died or that have splintered, or those with foreign origins gradually integrating themselves into the culture of a new country.
| |
| | | | |
| − | ===Non-religious groups characterized as cults=== | + | ===Stigmatization=== |
| − | According to the views of what some scholars call the "[[Anti-Cult Movement]]," although the majority of groups described as "cults" are religious in nature, a significant number are non-religious. These may include political, psychotherapeutic or [[Multi-level marketing|marketing]] oriented cults organized in manners similar to the traditional religious cult. The term has also been applied to certain channelling, human-potential and self-improvement organizations, some of which do not define themselves as religious but are considered to have significant religious influences.
| + | [[Image:Swami Prabhupada.jpg|thumb|Swami Prabhupada, founder of the American movement for "Khrisha Consciousness."]] |
| | + | Because of the increasingly pejorative use of the terms "cult" over recent decades, many argue that the term should be avoided. |
| | | | |
| − | Groups that have been labeled as "political cults," mostly far-left or far-right in their ideologies, have received some attention from journalists and scholars, though this usage is less common. Claims of cult-like practices exists for only about a dozen ideological cadre or racial combat organizations, though the allegation is sometimes made more freely.<ref>See Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth, ''[[On the Edge (book)|On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left]]'', Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2000. [http://www.mesharpe.com/mall/resultsa.asp?Title=On+the+Edge%3A+Political+Cults+Right+and+Left]</ref> Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth are are two prominent former members of [[Trotskyist]] sects who now attack their former organizations and the Trotskyist movement in general.<ref>Bob Pitt, Review of Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth, On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left. ''What Next Journal'' (online), No. 17, 2000 [http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages//Back/Wnext17/Reviews.html]</ref>
| + | Researcher [[Amy Ryan]] has argued for the need to differentiate those groups that may be dangerous from groups that are more benign.<ref>Amy Ryan, [http://rand.pratt.edu/~giannini/newreligions.html#Definitions New Religions and the Anti-Cult Movement.] Retrieved July 22, 2008.</ref> Ryan notes the sharp differences between definition from cult opponents, who tend to focus on negative characteristics, and sociologists, who aim to create definitions that are value-free. These definitions of religion itself has political and ethical impact beyond scholarly debate. Washington DC legal scholar [[Bruce J. Casino]] presents the issue as crucial to international [[human rights]] law. Limiting the definition of religion may interfere with [[freedom of religion]], while too broad a definition may give some dangerous or abusive groups "a limitless excuse for avoiding all unwanted legal obligations."<ref>Bruce J. Casino, Defining Religion in American Law, ''Religious Freedom.''</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | The concept of the "cult" is applied by analogy to refer to adulation of non-political leaders, and sometimes in the context of certain businessmen, management styles, and company work environments. [[Multi-level marketing]] has often been described as a cult due to the fact that a large part of the operation of a typical multi-level marketing consists of hiring and recruiting other people, selling motivational material, to the point that people involved in the business spend most of their time for the benefit of the organization. Consequently, some MLM companies like [[Amway]] have felt the need to specifically state that they are not cult-like in nature.<ref>{{cite web|title=Amway/Quixtar|publisher=Apologetics Index|url=http://www.apologeticsindex.org/a43.html|accessdate=2007-06-11}}</ref>
| + | In 1999, the [[Maryland]] State Task Force to Study the Effects of Cult Activities on Public Senior [[Higher Education]] Institutions admitted in its final report that it had "decided not to attempt to define the world 'cult'" and proceeded to avoid the word entirely in its final report, except in its title and introduction.<ref> Task Force Exectutive Summary, ''Religious Freedom.''</ref> |
| − | | |
| − | Another related term in politics is that of the [[personality cult]]. Although most groups labeled as [[political cult]]s involve a "[[cult of personality]]," the latter concept is a broader one, having its origins in the excessive adulation said to have surrounded Soviet leader [[Joseph Stalin]]. It has also been applied to several other despotic heads of state.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Stigmatization and discrimination==
| |
| − | Because of the increasingly pejorative use of the terms "cult" and "cult leader" over recent decades, many argue that these terms are to be avoided. A website affiliated with [[Adi Da Samraj]] sees the activities of cult opponents as the exercise of prejudice and discrimination against them, and regards the use of the words "cult" and "cult leader" as similar to political or racial epithets.<ref>[http://www.firmstand.org/]</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Amy Ryan]] has argued for the need to differentiate those groups that may be dangerous from groups that are more benign.<ref>[[Amy Ryan]]: ''New Religions and the Anti-Cult Movement: Online Resource Guide in Social Sciences'' (2000) [http://rand.pratt.edu/~giannini/newreligions.html#Definitions]</ref> Ryan notes the sharp differences between definition from cult opponents, who tend to focus on negative characteristics, and those of sociologists, who aim to create definitions that are value-free. The movements themselves may have different definitions of religion as well. [[George Chryssides]] also cites a need to develop better definitions to allow for common ground in the debate.
| |
| − | | |
| − | These definitions have political and ethical impact beyond just scholarly debate. In ''Defining Religion in American Law'', Bruce J. Casino presents the issue as crucial to international human rights laws. Limiting the definition of religion may interfere with freedom of religion, while too broad a definition may give some dangerous or abusive groups "a limitless excuse for avoiding all unwanted legal obligations."<ref>Casino. Bruce J., ''Defining Religion in American Law'', 1999, [http://www.religiousfreedom.com/articles/casino.htm]</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Some authors in the cult opposition dislike the word cult to the extent it implies that there is a continuum with a large gray area separating "cult" from "noncult" which they do not see.<ref>Casino. Bruce J., ''Defining Religion in American Law'', 1999, [http://www.religiousfreedom.com/articles/casino.htm]</ref> Others authors, e.g. [[Steven Hassan]], differentiate by using terms like "[[Destructive cult]]," or "Cult" (totalitarian type) vs. "benign cult."
| |
| | | | |
| | ===Leaving a "cult"=== | | ===Leaving a "cult"=== |
| − | There are at least three ways people leave a "cult." These are 1.) On their own decision (walkaways); 2.) Through expulsion (castaways); and 3.) By intervention ([[Exit counseling]], [[deprogramming]]).<ref>Duhaime, Jean ([[Université de Montréal]]), ''Les Témoigagnes de Convertis et d'ex-Adeptes'' (English: ''The testimonies of converts and former followers'', an article which appeared in the book ''New Religions in a Postmodern World'' edited by Mikael Rothstein and Reender Kranenborg, RENNER Studies in New religions, [[Aarhus University]] press, 2003, ISBN 87-7288-748-6</ref><sup>,</sup><ref>Giambalvo, Carol, ''Post-cult problems'' [http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/giambalvo_carol_postcult_problems.htm]</ref>
| + | A major contention of the anti-cult movement, in the 1970s, had been that "cult members" had lost their ability to choose and only rarely left their groups without "[[deprogramming]]." This view has been largely discredited, as there are clearly at least three ways people leave a new religious movement. These are 1) by their own decision, 2) through expulsion, and 3) by intervention ([[exit counseling]] or deprogramming). ("Exit counseling" is defined as a voluntary intervention in which the member agrees to the discussion and is free to leave. "Deprogramming" involves forcible confinement against the person's will.) |
| | | | |
| − | In ''Bounded Choice'' (2004), Lalich describes a fourth way of leaving—rebelling against the group's majority or leader. This was based on her own experience in the Marxist-Leninist Democratic Workers Party, where the entire membership quit. However, rebellion is more often a combination of the walkaway and castaway patterns in that the rebellion may trigger the expulsion—essentially, the rebels provoke the leadership into being the agency of their break with an over-committed lifestyle. Tourish and Wohlforth (2000) and Dennis King (1989) provide what they consider several examples in the history of political groups that have been characterized as cults. The 'rebellion' response in such groups appears to follow a longstanding behavior pattern among leftwing political sects which began long before the emergence of the contemporary political cult.
| + | Most authors agree that some people experience problems after leaving a "cult." These include negative reactions in the individual leaving the group as well as negative responses from the group such as [[shunning]], which is practiced by some but not all NRMs and older religions alike. There are disagreements regarding the degree and frequency of such problems, however, and regarding the cause. [[Eileen Barker]] mentions that some former members may not take new initiatives for quite a long time after disaffiliation from the NRM. However, she also points out that leaving is not nearly so difficult as imagined. Indeed, as many as 90 percent of those who join a high intensity group ultimately decide to leave.<ref>Barker, 1983.</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | Most authors agree that some people experience problems after leaving a cult. These include negative reactions in the individual leaving the group as well as negative responses from the group such as [[shunning]]. There are disagreements regarding the frequency of such problems, however, and regarding the cause.
| + | Exit Counselor [[Carol Giambalvo]] believes most people leaving a cult have associated psychological problems, such as feelings of guilt or shame, depression, feeling of inadequacy, or fear, that are independent of their manner of leaving the cult.<ref>Carol Giambalvo, Post-cult problems.</ref> However, sociologists [[David Bromley]] and [[Jeffrey Hadden]] note a lack of empirical support for alleged consequences of having been a member of a cult or sect, and substantial empirical evidence against it. They cite the fact that a large proportion of people who get involved in NRMs leave within two years; the overwhelming proportion of those who leave do so of their own volition; and that 67 percent felt "wiser for the experience."<ref>Brombly and Hadden, 1993, 75-97.</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | According to Barker (1989), the greatest worry about potential harm concerns the central and most dedicated followers of a [[new religious movement]] (NRM). Barker mentions that some former members may not take new initiatives for quite a long time after disaffiliation from the NRM. This generally does not concern the many superficial, short-lived, or peripheral supporters of a NRM. <!-- Membership in a cult usually does not last forever: 90% or more of cult members ultimately leave their group by death<ref>[[Eileen Barker|Barker, E.]] ''The Ones Who Got Away: People Who Attend Unification Church Workshops and Do Not Become Moonies''. In: Barker E, ed. ''Of Gods and Men: New Religious Movements in the West'''. Macon, Ga. : Mercer University Press; 1983. ISBN 0-86554-095-0</ref><sup>,</sup><ref>Galanter M. ''[[Unification Church]] ('Moonie') dropouts: psychological readjustment after leaving a charismatic religious group'', ''American Journal of Psychiatry''. 1983;140(8):984-989.</ref>. —>
| + | ===Criticism by former members=== |
| | + | The role of former members in the controversy surrounding cults has also been widely studied by social scientists. Former members in some cases become public opponents against their former group. The former members' motivations, the roles they play in the anti-cult movement, and the validity of their testimonies are controversial. Scholars suspect that at least some of their narratives—especially concerning so-called "[[mind control]]"—are colored by a 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. |
| | | | |
| − | Exit Counselor Carol Giambalvo believes most people leaving a cult have associated psychological problems, such as feelings of guilt or shame, depression, feeling of inadequacy, or fear, that are independent of their manner of leaving the cult. Feelings of guilt, shame, or anger are by her observation worst with castaways, but walkaways can also have similar problems. She says people who had interventions or a rehabilitation therapy do have similar problems but are usually better prepared to deal with them.<ref>Giambalvo, Carol, ''Post-cult problems'' [http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/giambalvo_carol_postcult_problems.htm]</ref>
| + | Moreover, although some cases of abuse are incontrovertible, hostile ex-members have been shown to shade the truth and blow out of proportion minor incidents, turning them into major abuses.<ref>Gordon Melton, [http://www.cesnur.org/testi/melton.htm Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory.] Retrieved July 22, 2008.</ref> Sociologist and legal scholar [[James Richardson (sociologist)|James T. Richardson]] contends that because there are a large number of NRMs, a tendency exists to make unjustified generalizations about them, based on a select sample of observations of life in such groups or the testimonies of (ex-)members.<ref>Richardson, 1989.</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | Sociologists Bromley and Hadden note a lack of empirical support for alleged consequences of having been a member of a cult or sect, and substantial empirical evidence against it. These include the fact that the overwhelming proportion of people who get involved in NRMs leave, most short of two years; the overwhelming proportion of people who leave of their own volition; and that two-thirds (67%) felt "wiser for the experience."<ref>Hadden, J and Bromley, D eds. (1993), ''The Handbook of Cults and Sects in America.'' Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc., pp. 75-97.</ref>
| + | ==Governments and "cults"== |
| | + | Some governments have taken restrictive measures against "cults" and "sects." In the 1970s, some U.S. judges issued "conservatorship" orders revoking the freedom of an NRM to remain in his or her group so as to facilitate a [[deprogramming]] attempt. These actions were later ruled unconstitutional be higher courts. Several attempts at state legislation to legalize deprogramming likewise failed as the "mind control" theory came to be discredited in courts. However, it has been argued that the "[[brainwashing]]" theory promulgated by the anti-cult movement contributed to U.S. actions leading to the deaths of close to 100 members of the [[Branch Davidian]] group in [[Waco, Texas|Waco]], [[Texas]].<ref>D. Anthony, T. Robbins, S. Barrie-Anthony, "Cult and Anticult Totalism: Reciprocal Escalation and Violence," ''Terrorism and Political Violence'' Spring 2002: 211-240.</ref> It has also been alleged that negative perceptions of a group by prosecutors was a factor in the [[income tax]] case against the Reverend [[Sun Myung Moon]] of the Unification Church, which resulted in his serving more than a year in prison in the mid 1980s.<ref>Sherwood, 1991.</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | Popular authors Conway and Siegelman conducted a survey and published it in the book ''Snapping'' regarding after-cult effects and deprogramming and concluded that people deprogrammed had fewer problems than people not deprogrammed. The [[BBC]] writes that in a survey done by Jill Mytton on 200 former cult members most of them reported problems adjusting to society and about a third would benefit from some counseling.<ref>BBC News 20 May 2000: Sect leavers have mental problems [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/755588.stm]</ref>
| + | More recently, governments in Europe have sought to control "sects" through various state actions. The annual report by the [[United States Commission on International Religious Freedom]] have criticized these initiatives as "…fueled an atmosphere of intolerance toward members of minority religions." The U.S. State Department has criticized France, Germany, Russia, and several other European states for repressive measures against "sects." In Japan, deprogramming cases still find their way into the civil courts, while police allegedly refuse to bring criminal charges against the perpetrators. Meanwhile the Chinese government has become notorious for its mistreatment of members of the [[Falun Gong]] spiritual movement and other groups denounced by the government as "heretical cults." |
| − | | |
| − | Burks (2002), in a study comparing Group Psychological Abuse Scale (GPA) and Neurological Impairment Scale (NIS) scores in 132 former members of cults and cultic relationships, found a positive correlation between intensity of thought reform environment as measured by the GPA and cognitive impairment as measured by the NIS. Additional findings were a reduced earning potential in view of the education level that corroborates earlier studies of cult critics (Martin 1993; Singer & Ofshe, 1990; West & Martin, 1994) and significant levels of depression and dissociation agreeing with Conway & Siegelman, (1982), Lewis & Bromley, (1987) and Martin, et al. (1992).<ref>Burks, Ronald, ''Cognitive Impairment in Thought Reform Environments'' [http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~rb267689/#_Toc2952976]</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | According to Barret, in many cases the problems do not happen while in a movement, but when leaving, which can be difficult for some members and may include [[psychological trauma]]. Reasons for this trauma may include: [[conditioning]] by the religious movement; avoidance of uncertainties about life and its meaning; having had powerful religious experiences; love for the founder of the religion; emotional investment; fear of losing [[salvation]]; bonding with other members; anticipation of the realization that time, money, and efforts donated to the group were a waste; and the new freedom with its corresponding responsibilities, especially for people who lived in a community. Those reasons may prevent a member from leaving even if the member realizes that some things in the NRM are wrong. According to Kranenborg, in some religious groups, members have all their social contacts within the group, which makes disaffection and disaffiliation very traumatic.<ref>Kranenborg, Reender Dr. (Dutch language) ''Sekten... gevaarlijk of niet?/Cults... dangerous or not?'' published in the magazine ''Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland/Religious movements in the Netherlands'' nr. 31 ''Sekten II'' by the [[Vrije Universiteit|Free university Amsterdam]] (1996) ISSN 0169-7374 ISBN 90-5383-426-5</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | According to F. Derks and J. van der Lans, there is no uniform [[post-cult trauma]]. While psychological and social problems upon resignation are not uncommon, their character and intensity are greatly dependent on the personal history and on the traits of the ex-member, and on the reasons for and way of resignation.<ref>F. Derks and the professor of [[psychology of religion]] [[Jan van der Lans]] ''The post-cult syndrome: Fact or Fiction?'', paper presented at conference of Psychologists of Religion, [[Radboud University Nijmegen|Catholic University Nijmegen]], 1981, also appeared in Dutch language as ''Post-cult-syndroom; feit of fictie?'', published in the magazine ''Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland/Religious movements in the Netherlands'' nr. 6 pages 58-75 published by the [[Vrije Universiteit|Free university Amsterdam]] (1983)</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Criticism by former members of purported cults==
| |
| − | The role of former members in the controversy surrounding cults has been widely studied by social scientists. Former members in some cases become public opponents against their former group. The former members' motivations, the roles they play in the anti-cult movement, the validity of their testimony, and the kinds of narratives they construct, are controversial with some scholars who suspect that at least some of the narratives are colored by a 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,<ref>Wilson, Bryan R. ''Apostates and New Religious Movements'', Oxford, England, 1994</ref> and that hostile ex-members would invariably shade the truth and blow out of proportion minor incidents, turning them into major incidents.<ref>Melton, Gordon J., ''Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory'', 1999</ref> Other scholars conclude that testimonies of former members are at least as accurate as testimonies of current members.{{Fact|date=July 2007}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Scholars that challenge the validity of [[apostate|critical former members']] testimonies as the basis for studying a religious group include [[David G. Bromley]], [[Anson Shupe]], [[Brian R. Wilson]], and [[Lonnie Kliever]]. Bromley and Shupe, who studied the social influences on such testimonies, assert that the apostate in his current role is likely to present a caricature of his former group and that the stories of critical ex-members who defect from groups that are subversive (defined as groups with few allies and many opponents) tend to have the form of "captivity narratives" (i.e. the narratives depict the stay in the group as involuntary). 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. Introvigne found in his study of the [[New Acropolis]] in France, that public negative testimonies and attitudes were only voiced by a minority of the ex-members, who he describes as becoming "professional enemies" of the group they leave. Kliever, when asked by the [[Church of Scientology]] to give his opinion on the reliability of apostate accounts of their former religious beliefs and practices, writes that these dedicated opponents present a distorted view of the new religions, and cannot be regarded as reliable informants by responsible journalists, scholars, or jurists. He claims that the reason for the lack of reliability of apostates is due to the traumatic nature of disaffiliation that he compares to a divorce and also due the influence of the anti-cult movement even on those apostates who were not deprogrammed or received exit counseling. Scholars and psychologists who tend to side more with critical former members include [[David C. Lane]], [[Louis Jolyon West]], [[Margaret Singer]], [[Stephen A. Kent]], [[Benjamin Beith-Hallahmi]] and [[Benjamin Zablocki]]. Zablocki performed an empirical study that showed that the reliability of former members is equal to that of stayers in one particular group. [[Philip Lucas]] found the same empirical results.
| |
| − | | |
| − | According to Lewis F. Carter, the [[Reliability (statistics)|reliability]] and [[Validity (statistics)|validity]] of the testimonies of believers are influenced by the tendency to justify affiliation with the group, whereas the testimonies of former members and apostates are influenced by a variety of factors.<ref>Carter, Lewis, F. Lewis, ''Carriers of Tales: On Assessing Credibility of Apostate and Other Outsider Accounts of Religious Practices'' published in the book ''The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements'' edited by David G. Bromley Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, (1998). ISBN 0-275-95508-7</ref> Besides, the interpretative frame of members tends to change strongly upon conversion and disaffection and hence may strongly influence their narratives. Carter affirms that the degree of knowledge of different (ex-)members about their (former) group is highly diverse, especially in hierarchically organized groups. Using his experience at [[Rajneeshpuram]] (the [[intentional community]] of the followers of [[Rajneesh]]) as an example, he claims that the [[social influence]] exerted by the group may influence the accounts of [[ethnography|ethnographers]] and of [[participant observation|participant observers]].<ref>Carter, Lewis, F. Lewis, ''Carriers of Tales: On Assessing Credibility of Apostate and Other Outsider Accounts of Religious Practices'' published in the book ''The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements'' edited by David G. Bromley Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, (1998). ISBN 0-275-95508-7</ref> He proposes a method he calls ''triangulation'' as the best method to study groups, by utilizing three accounts: those of believers, apostates, and ethnographers. Carter asserts that such methodology is difficult to put into practice.<ref>Carter, Lewis, F. Lewis, ''Carriers of Tales: On Assessing Credibility of Apostate and Other Outsider Accounts of Religious Practices'' published in the book ''The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements'' edited by David G. Bromley Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, (1998). ISBN 0-275-95508-7</ref> [[Daniel Carson Johnson]]<ref>Johnson, Daniel Carson (1998) ''Apostates Who Never were: the Social Construction of Absque Facto Apostate Narratives'', published in the book ''The ''Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements'' edited by David G. Bromley Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, (1998). ISBN 0-275-95508-7</ref> writes that even the triangulation method rarely succeeds in making assertions with certitude.<ref>Carter, Lewis, F. Lewis, ''Carriers of Tales: On Assessing Credibility of Apostate and Other Outsider Accounts of Religious Practices'' published in the book ''The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements'' edited by David G. Bromley Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, (1998). ISBN 0-275-95508-7</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[James Richardson (sociologist)|James T. Richardson]] contends that there are a large number of cults, and a tendency among scholars to make unjustified generalizations about them based on a select sample of observations of life in such groups or the testimonies of (ex-)members. According to Richardson, this tendency is responsible for the widely divergent opinions about cults among scholars and social scientists.<ref>Richardson, James T. (1989) ''The Psychology of Induction: A Review and Interpretation'', article that appeared in the book edited by Marc Galanter M.D. (1989) ''Cults and new religious movements: a report of the committee on psychiatry and religion of the [[American Psychiatric Association]]'' ISBN 0-89042-212-5
| |
| − | </ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Eileen Barker]] (2001) wrote that critical former members of cults complain that academic observers only notice what the leadership wants them to see.<ref>[[Eileen Barker|Barker, E.]] (2001), ''Watching for Violence: A Comparative Analysis of the Roles of Five Types of Cult-Watching Groups'', [http://www.cesnur.org/2001/london2001/barker.htm available online]</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ''See also [[Apostasy#In purported cults and new religious movements.28NRMs.29|Apostasy in new religious movements]], and [[Anti-cult movement#Apostates and Apologists|Apostates and Apologists]]''.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Allegations made by scholars or skeptics===
| |
| − | * False, irrational or even contradictory teaching, made by [[David C. Lane]] with regards to [[Paul Twitchell]];
| |
| − | * False [[miracle]]s performed or endorsed by the leadership, made by the [[scientific skepticism|skeptic]]s [[Abraham Kovoor]], [[H. Narasimhaiah]], and [[Basava Premanand]] for a variety of [[guru]]s and [[fakir]]s;
| |
| − | * Discouraging regular medical care but instead relying on [[faith healing]], made by the magazine [[salon.com]] with regards to [[Christian Science]];
| |
| − | * [[Plagiarism]], allegations made by David C. Lane;
| |
| − | * Incitement to [[anti-Semitism]] and other forms of hate, as documented in the writings of [[Dennis King]] and [[Chip Berlet]];
| |
| − | * Child abuse, for example subjecting blindfolded children to many hours of meditation, as documented by Dr. [[David C. Lane]] with regards to [[Thakar Singh]];<ref>[[David C. Lane|Lane, David C.]], ''The Guru Has No Turban: Part 2'' [http://members.tripod.com/~dlane5/thakar.html]</ref> and
| |
| − | * Forced labor and confinement of members, made by [[Stephen A. Kent]] regarding [[Scientology]].<ref>[[Stephen A. Kent|Kent, Stephen A.]] ''Brainwashing in Scientology's Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF)'', 1997 [http://www.lermanet2.com/scientology/gulags/BrainwashinginScientology'sRehabilitationProjectForce.htm]</ref>
| |
| − | * Threats, harassment, excessive lawsuits and [[ad hominem]] attacks against critics. Allegations regarding the use of such tactics have been made against [[Scientology]], the [[Lyndon LaRouche]] organization, and the now defunct [[Synanon]] drug-treatment cult.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Prevalence of purported cults==
| |
| − | By one measure, between 3,000 and 5,000 purported cults existed in the [[United States]] in 1995.<ref>[[Margaret Singer|Singer, M]] with Lalich, J (1995). ''Cults in Our Midst'', San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ISBN 0-7879-0051-6
| |
| − | </ref> Some of the more well-known and influential of these groups are frequently labelled as cults in the mass media. Most of these well-known groups vigorously [[protest]] the label and refuse to be classified as such, and often expend great efforts in [[public relations]] campaigns to rid themselves of the stigma associated with the term ''cult''. But most of the thousands of purported cults live below the media's radar and are rarely or ever the subject of significant public scrutiny. Such groups rarely need to speak up in their own defense, and some of them just ignore the occasional fleeting attention they may get from the media.
| |
| − | | |
| − | A [[List of groups referred to as cults]] is a list so referred to by mainstream media and academic sources. A group's presence on the media list does not prove that they are a cult, only that someone has been reported as expressing that undefined opinion about them.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Cults and governments==
| |
| − | {{main|Cults and governments}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | In many countries there exists a [[separation of church and state]] and [[freedom of religion]]. Governments of some of these countries, concerned with possible abuses by cults, have taken restrictive measures against some of their activities. Critics of such measures claim that the counter-cult movement and the anti-cult movement have succeeded in influencing governments in transferring the public's abhorrence of doomsday cults and make the generalization that it is directed against all small or new religious movements without discrimination. The critique is countered by stressing that the measures are directed not against any religious beliefs, but specifically against groups whom they see as inimical to the public order due to their totalitarianism, violations of fundamental liberties, inordinate emphasis on finances, and/or disregard for appropriate medical care.<ref>[[Stephen A. Kent|Kent, Stephen A.]] ''Brainwashing in Scientology's Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF)'', 1997 [http://www.lermanet2.com/scientology/gulags/BrainwashinginScientology'sRehabilitationProjectForce.htm]</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | There exists a controversy regarding religious tolerance between the [[United States]] and several European countries, especially [[France]] and [[Germany]], that have taken legal measures directed against "cultic" groups that they believe violate human rights. The 2004 annual report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom states that these initiatives have "...fueled an atmosphere of intolerance toward members of minority religions in France." On the other hand, the countries confronted with such allegations see the United States' attitude towards NRMs as failing to take into account the responsibility of the state for the wellbeing of its citizens, especially concerning children and incapacitated persons. They further claim that the interference of the United States in their internal affairs is at least partially due to the domestic lobbying of cults and cult apologists.<ref>[[Stephen A. Kent|Kent, Stephen A.]] ''Brainwashing in Scientology's Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF)'', 1997 [http://www.lermanet2.com/scientology/gulags/BrainwashinginScientology'sRehabilitationProjectForce.htm]</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Most governmental clashes with groups alleged to have cult-like characteristics in the [[United States]] in recent years have been the result of real or perceived violations of the law by the groups in question.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} There have been no well documented recent cases of the U.S. government persecuting a supposedly cult-like group based solely on its religious beliefs. It has been argued that the "[[brainwashing]]" ideology promulgated by theorists in the anti-cult movement has been a key contributing factor in recent violent events, including the deaths of close to 100 members of the [[Branch Davidian]] group in [[Waco, Texas|Waco]], [[Texas]].<ref>Anthony D, Robbins T, Barrie-Anthony S. Cult and Anticult Totalism: Reciprocal Escalation and Violence. Terrorism and Political Violence, Volume 14, Special Issue 1, Spring 2002, pp. 211-240.</ref> Revelations in the 1970s by the U.S. Senate's [[Church Committee]] investigating the FBI's [[COINTELPRO]] program revealed extensive evidence that the Agency had engaged in an illegal, large-scale covert program which included portraying various political dissident organizations as violent criminals and extremists as a prelude to and justification for crackdowns on these groups.<ref>[http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointelsources.htm Bibliography compiled by www.cointelpro.org]</ref> It is also possible that negative perceptions of a group by prosecutors could make them more quick to prosecute than they might otherwise be; the [[income tax]] case against Reverend Moon is sometimes cited as such an incident.)<ref>Sherwood, Carlton (1991) Inquisition: The Persecution and Prosecution of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Washington, D.C.: Regnery (ISBN 0-89526-532-X)</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | In addition, the [[United States]] has never had an established church. Groups characterized as cults or as having non-mainstream beliefs have often been able to gain political influence; for instance, the [[Unification Church]] (by way of ownership of the influential newspaper, the ''Washington Times''), and [[Scientology]] (by way of its Hollywood connections, which some observers have suggested gave it clout with the [[Clinton administration]]).{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | A 1996 French Parliamentary Commission issued a [http://www.assemblee-nat.fr/rap-enq/r2468.asp report] [http://cftf.com/french/Les_Sectes_en_France/cults.html unofficial translations], in which a list of purported cults compiled by the general information division of the [[French National Police]] ([[Renseignements généraux]]) was reprinted. In it were listed 173 groups. Members of some of the groups included in the list have alleged instances of intolerance due to the ensuing negative publicity. Although this list has no statutory or regulatory value, it is at the background of the criticism directed at France with respect to freedom of religion.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The "Interministerial Mission in the Fight Against Sects/Cults" (MILS) was formed in 1998 to coordinate government monitoring of sect (name given to cults in France). In February 1998 MILS released its annual report on the monitoring of sects. The president of MILS resigned in June under criticism and an interministerial working group was formed to determine the future parameters of the Government's monitoring of sects. In November the Government announced the formation of the Interministerial Monitoring Mission Against Sectarian Abuses (MIVILUDES), which is charged with observing and analyzing movements that constitute a threat to public order or that violate French law, coordinating the appropriate response, informing the public about potential risks, and helping victims to receive aid. In its announcement of the formation of MIVILUDES, the Government acknowledged that its predecessor, MILS, had been criticized for certain actions abroad that could have been perceived as contrary to religious freedom. On May 2005, former prime minister [[Jean-Pierre Raffarin]] issued a circular indicating that the list of cults published on the parliamentary report of 1966 should no longer be used to identify cults. <ref>[http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnTexteDeJorf?numjo=PRMX0508471C Circulaire du 27 mai 2005 relative à la lutte contre les dérives sectaires]</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Cults in literature==
| |
| − | :<div class="noprint">''Main article{{#if:{{{2|}}}|s}}: [[cults in literature and popular culture|{{{l1|cults in literature and popular culture}}}]]{{#if:{{{2| }}}
| |
| − | |{{#if:{{{3|}}}|, | and }}[[{{{2}}}|{{{l2|{{{2}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}
| |
| − | |{{#if:{{{4|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{3}}}|{{{l3|{{{3}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{4|}}}
| |
| − | |{{#if:{{{5|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{4}}}|{{{l4|{{{4}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{5|}}}
| |
| − | |, and [[{{{5}}}|{{{l5|{{{5}}}}}}]]}}''{{#if:{{{6| }}}|  (too many parameters in {{[[Template:main|main]]}})}}</div>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Cults have been a subject or theme in [[literature]] and [[popular culture]] since ancient times. There are many references to it in the 20th century.
| |
| | | | |
| | ==See also== | | ==See also== |
| − | <div style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
| |
| | * [[Apostasy]] | | * [[Apostasy]] |
| − | * [[Atrocity story]] | + | * [[Deprogramming]] |
| − | * [[Classifications of cults and new religious movements]] | + | * [[Religious freedom]] |
| − | * [[Cult Awareness Network]]
| |
| − | * [[Cult Films]]
| |
| − | * [[Cult suicide]]
| |
| − | * [[Cults and governments]]
| |
| − | * [[Development of religion]]
| |
| − | * [[Destructive cult]]
| |
| − | * [[Groupthink]]
| |
| − | * [[Hate group#Hate groups and new religious movements|Hate groups and new religious movements]]
| |
| − | * [[LGAT|Large Group Awareness Training (LGAT)]]
| |
| − | * [[Legalism (theology)]]
| |
| − | * [[List of groups referred to as cults]]
| |
| − | * [[New religious movement]]
| |
| − | * [[Opposition to cults and new religious movements]]
| |
| − | * [[Pious fraud]]
| |
| − | * [[Religious_conversion#Other_religions_and_sects|Religious conversion to new religious movements and cults]]
| |
| − | * [[Sect]]
| |
| − | * [[Social implosion]]
| |
| − | * [[Sociology of religion|Sociology of religion (currently treating only one theory)]]
| |
| − | * [[True-believer syndrome]]
| |
| − | </Div>
| |
| | | | |
| − | ==External links== | + | ==Notes== |
| − | * [http://www.gideonsword.net/WordPress/ False Teachers EXPOSED:] Defining a Cult - The Borderline Between Christian and Counterfeit: Article defining a cult by it's attributes from a Biblical Christian perspective.
| + | <references/> |
| − | * [http://www.apologeticsindex.org/ Apologetics Index:] cults, sects, and related issues - Website of [[Anton Hein]], essentially an evangelical Christian point of view.
| |
| − | * [http://www.cesnur.org/ CESNUR] See [[CESNUR]] (the works of some scholars in the area of new religious movements [[New religious movement|NRMs]])
| |
| − | * [http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Cult "Cult"] Defense of the term "cult" to describe the [[Children of God]]
| |
| − | * [http://www.caic.org.au/ Cult Awareness and Information Centre] Australian site.
| |
| − | * [http://www.cultawarenessnetwork.org Cult Awareness Network] - Website of the [[Cult Awareness Network]] now affiliated with [[Scientology]]
| |
| − | * [http://www.csj.org/ Cultic Studies: Information about Cults and Psychological Manipulation] - Scholarly articles, group descriptions and news by the [[International Cultic Studies Association]]
| |
| − | * [http://www.skepsis.nl/onlinetexts.html Dutch Skeptics Society:] Online papers, articles and books about Cults, New Religious Movements, and the Social Scientific Study of Religion
| |
| − | * [http://www.factnet.org/ FactNet:] research on cults, sects and related issues, with an emphasis on [[Scientology]]
| |
| − | *[http://www.cults.co.nz/index.php] New Zealand listing of organizations
| |
| − | * [http://www.math.mcgill.ca/triples/infocult/ic-e1.html Info cult] Canadian site.
| |
| − | * [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance] - articles and essays about religious groups and related subjects.
| |
| − | * [http://www.rickross.org/ Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey,] a collection of news articles and information about cults, destructive cults, controversial groups and movements" by [[Rick Ross]].
| |
| − | * [http://www.ugpulse.com/articles/daily/People.asp?ID=586 Seven Years Since the Kanungu Massacre] Cults in Africa
| |
| − | * [http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu University of Virginia Religious Movements Homepage] - Website featuring the opinions and collected papers of the late sociologist [[Jeffrey Hadden]], regarding new religious movements, now edited by [[Douglas E. Cowan]]
| |
| − | * [http://www.cultexit.org/deep/page/1/latest Cult Exit] A mutual support forum for people affected by cults.
| |
| | | | |
| − | ==Bibliography== | + | ==References== |
| − | ===Books===
| + | * Barker, Eileen. ''The Making of a Moonie: Choice or Brainwashing?'' Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1984. ISBN 978-0631132462 |
| − | * Bromley, David et al.: ''Cults, Religion, and Violence'', 2002, ISBN 0-521-66898-0 | + | * ''New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction''. London: H.M.S.O., 1989. ISBN 978-0113409273 |
| − | * [[J. Gordon Melton|Melton, Gordon]]: ''Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America'', 1992, ISBN 0-8153-1140-0 | + | * Bromley, David G., and Jeffrey K. Hadden. ''The Handbook on Cults and Sects in America''. Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press, 1993. ISBN 978-1559387156 |
| − | * House, Wayne: ''Charts of Cults, Sects, and Religious Movements'', 2000, ISBN 0-310-38551-2 | + | * Bromley, David G., and J. Gordon Melton. ''Cults, Religion, and Violence''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. ISBN 0521668980 |
| − | * Kramer, Joel and Alstad, Diane: ''The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power'', 1993.
| + | * Lalich, Janja. ''Bounded Choice: True Believers and Charismatic Cults''. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. ISBN 0520240189 |
| − | * Lalich, Janja: ''Bounded Choice: True Believers and Charismatic Cults'', 2004, ISBN 0-520-24018-9 | + | * Gordon, Melton J. ''Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America''. New York: Garland Pub, 1992. ISBN 0815311400 |
| − | * Landau Tobias, Madeleine et al. : ''Captive Hearts, Captive Minds'', 1994, ISBN 0-89793-144-0 | + | * Richardson, James T. "The Psychology of Induction: A Review and Interpretation." In Marc Galanter (ed.), ''Cults and New Religious Movements.'' American Psychological Assn., 1989. ISBN 0890422125 |
| − | *[[James R. Lewis|Lewis, James R.]] ''The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements'' [[Oxford University Press]], 2004 | + | * Sherwood, Carlton. ''Inquisition: The Persecution and Prosecution of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon''. Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 1991. ISBN 089526532X |
| − | *Lewis, James R. ''Odd Gods: New Religions and the Cult Controversy'', [[Prometheus Books]], 2001 | + | * Singer, Margaret Thaler. ''Cults in Our Midst''. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003. ISBN 0787967416 |
| − | * Martin, Walter et al.: ''The Kingdom of the Cults'', 2003, ISBN 0-7642-2821-8 | + | * Stark, Rodney, and William Sims Bainbridge. ''A Theory of Religion''. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1996. ISBN 978-0813523309 |
| − | * Oakes, Len: ''Prophetic Charisma: The Psychology of Revolutionary Religious Personalities'', 1997, ISBN 0-8156-0398-3 [http://www.enlightenmentblues.com/chapter2.html Excerpts] | + | * Tourish, Dennis, and Tim Wohlforth. ''On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left''. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 2000. ISBN 0765606399 |
| − | * [[Margaret Singer|Singer, Margaret Thaler]]: ''Cults in Our Midst: The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace'', 1992, ISBN 0-7879-6741-6 [http://www.forum8.org/forum8/singer/singer_cults.htm Excerpts]
| + | * Zablocki, Benjamin David, and Thomas Robbins. ''Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field''. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001. ISBN 0802081886 |
| − | * Tourish, Dennis: '''On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left'', 2000, ISBN 0-7656-0639-9 | |
| − | * Zablocki, Benjamin et al.: ''Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field'', 2001, ISBN 0-8020-8188-6 | |
| − | * [[Eileen Barker|Barker, E.]] (1989) ''New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction'', London, HMSO
| |
| − | * Enroth, Ronald. (1992) ''[[Churches that Abuse]]'', Zondervan, ISBN 0-310-53290-6
| |
| − | * Phoenix, Lena: "The Heart of a Cult," 2006, ISBN 0-9785483-0-2
| |
| | | | |
| − | ===Articles=== | + | ==External links== |
| − | * Hardin, John W.: Defining a Cult - The Borderline Between Christian and Counterfeit: Article defining a cult by it's attributes from a Biblical Christian perspective.[http://www.gideonsword.net/WordPress/]
| + | All links retrieved January 11, 2024. |
| − | * Langone, Michael: Cults: Questions and Answers [http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_cultsqa.htm]
| |
| − | * [[Robert Jay Lifton|Lifton, Robert Jay]]: ''Cult Formation'', ''The Harvard Mental Health Letter'', February 1991 [http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/lifton_robert.htm]
| |
| − | * Moyers. Jim: ''Psychological Issues of Former Members of Restrictive Religious Groups'' [http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ejcmmsm/article/index.html]
| |
| − | * Richmond, Lee J. :''When Spirituality Goes Awry: Students in Cults'', Professional School Counseling, June 2004 [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KOC/is_5_7/ai_n6121244]
| |
| − | * Robbins, T. and D. Anthony, 1982. "Deprogramming, brainwashing and the medicalization of deviant religious groups" ''Social Problems'' '''29''' pp 283-97.
| |
| − | * Shaw, Daniel: ''Traumatic abuse in cults'' [http://members.aol.com/shawdan/essay.htm]
| |
| − | * [[James Richardson (sociologist)|James T. Richardson]]: "Definitions of Cult: From Sociological-Technical to Popular-Negative" ''Review of Religious Research'' '''34'''.4 (June 1993), pp. 348-356.
| |
| − | * Rosedale, Herbert et al.: ''On Using the Term "Cult"'' [http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_term_cult.htm]
| |
| − | * Van Hoey, Sara: ''Cults in Court'' The Los Angeles Lawyer, February 1991 [http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/van_hoey_sara_cults_in_court.htm]
| |
| − | * [[Philip Zimbardo|Zimbardo, Philip]]: ''What messages are behind today's cults?'', American Psychological Association Monitor, May 1997 [http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/zimbardo_philip_messeges.htm]
| |
| − | * Aronoff, Jodi; Lynn, Steven Jay; Malinosky, Peter. ''Are cultic environments psychologically harmful?'', ''Clinical Psychology Review'', 2000, Vol. 20 #1 pp. 91-111
| |
| − | * Rothstein, Mikael, ''[[Hagiography]] and Text in the [[Aetherius Society]]: Aspects of the Social Construction of a Religious Leader'', an article which appeared in the book ''New Religions in a Postmodern World'' edited by Mikael Rothstein and Reender Kranenborg, RENNER Studies in New religions, [[Aarhus University]] press, ISBN 87-7288-748-6
| |
| − | *Phoenix, Lena: "Thoughts on the Word Cult" [http://theheartofacult.com/essay.htm?]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==References==
| |
| − | {{reflist|2}}
| |
| | | | |
| − | {{cults}}
| + | * [http://www.apologeticsindex.org/ Apologetics Index]. ''www.apologeticsindex.org'' |
| | + | * [http://www.cesnur.org/ Center for Studies on New Religions]. ''www.cesnur.org'' |
| | + | * [http://www.icsahome.com/ International Cultic Studies Association]. ''www.icsahome.com'' |
| | | | |
| | [[Category:philosophy and religion]] | | [[Category:philosophy and religion]] |
| | + | [[category:religion]] |
| | {{Credit|153855061}} | | {{Credit|153855061}} |
Jonestown, Guyana, site of the Peoples Temple massacre in 1984
A cult, strictly speaking, is a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. Used in a more pejorative sense, cult refers to a cohesive social group, usually of a religious believers, which the surrounding society considers outside the mainstream or possibly dangerous. In Europe, the term "sect" is often used to describe "cults" in this sense.
During the twentieth century, groups referred to as "cults" or "sects" by governments and media became globally controversial. The rise and fall of several groups known for mass suicide and murder tarred hundreds of new religious groups of various characters, some arguably quite benign. Charges of "mind control," economic exploitation, and other forms of a abuse are routinely levied against "cults." However, scholars point out that each group is unique, and generalizations often do a disservice to the understanding of any particular group.
Controversy exists among sociologists of religion as to whether the term "cult" should be abandoned in favor of the more neutral "new religious movement." A great deal of literature has been produced on the subject, the objectivity of which is hotly debated.
Definitions
Etymologically, the word cult comes from the root of the word culture, representing the core system of beliefs and activities at the basis of a culture. Thus, every human being belongs to a "cult" in its most general sense, because everyone belongs to a culture which is conveyed by the language they speak and the habits they have formed.
The traditional use of the word "cult" refers to any tradition of religious worship, such as the cult of the Virgin Mary in Catholicism.
The literal and traditional meaning of the word cult is derived from the Latin cultus, meaning "care" or "adoration." Sociologists and historians of religion speak of the "cult" of the Virgin Mary or other traditions of worship in a neutral sense.
Among the formal definitions of "cult" are:
- A particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
- An instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: The physical fitness cult.
- A group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, and so on.
- In Sociology: A group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
- A religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.[1]
Most religions start out as "cults" or sects in the sense of the pejorative use of the term, that is, relatively small groups in high tension with the surrounding society. The classical example is Christianity. When it began, it was a minority system of beliefs and controversial practices such as holy communion. When it was a small "cult" or a minority group in the empire, it was often criticized by those who did not understand it or who were threatened by changes its adoption might mean. Rumors were spread by detractors about Christians drinking human blood and eating human flesh. However, when it became an official state religion and widely accepted, its practices informed activities of the culture as a whole.
When a new religion becomes a large or dominant in a society the "cult" basically becomes "culture."[2]
In this sense, "cult" may be seen as a pejorative term, something akin to calling someone a "barbarian." It represents a type of in-group/out-group terminology designed to exclude one group by calling them less human or inferior. Over time, such groups tend either die to out or become more established and in less tension with society.[3]
Due to popular connotations of the term "cult," many academic researchers of religion and sociology prefer to use the term new religious movement (NRM). Such new religions are usually started by charismatic but unpredictable leaders. If they survive past the first or second generation, they tend to institutionalize, become more stable, find a greater degree of acceptance in society, and sometimes become a mainstream or even dominant religious group.
In Europe, the term "sect" tends to carry a connotation similar to the word "cult" in the U.S.
Controversies about "cults"
By one measure, between 3,000 and 5,000 purported "cults" existed in the United States in 1995.[4] Anti-cult groups in the 1970s and 80s, overly comprised of families of NRM members who objected to the newfound faith of their relative, made particularly strong accusations regarding the threat of "dangerous cults." Among the allegations levied against these groups were "brainwashing," the separation of members from their families, food and sleep deprivation, economic exploitation, and potential harm to the larger society. Some families took desperate measures to force "cult" members back into traditional faiths or a secular way of life. This led to the so-called "deprogramming" controversy, in which thousands of young adults were forcibly kidnapped and held against their will by paid agents of family members in an effort to get them to renounce their groups. Media sensationalism fueled the controversy, as did court battles which pitted expert witnesses against each other in such fields as sociology and psychology.
The Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attacks created renewed concern about destructive cults.
Certain groups that have been characterized as cults have clearly posed a threat to the well-being and lives of their own members and to society in general. For example, the mass suicide of over 900 People's Temple members on November 18, 1978, led to increased concern about "cults." The sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995, carried out by members of Aum Shinrikyo, renewed this concern, as did several other violent acts—both self-destructive and against society—by other groups. The number of violently destructive groups, however, is extremely small compared with the literally tens of thousands of new religious movements which are estimated to exist.[5] Thus, relatively harmless groups found themselves associated with the violent self-destructive "cult" actions in which they had no part.
Today, some well-known NRM's remain suspect to the general public. Examples include Scientology, the Unification Church, and the Hare Krishnas. Each of these groups is now well into its second or third generation, but it is often difficult to distinguish between a group's public image—which may have become fixed decades earlier—and its current practices. Earlier "cults," such as the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and Christian Scientists, are now generally considered part of the mainstream religious fabric of the American society in which they originated.
Although the majority of "cults" are religious in nature, a small number of non-religious groups are classified as as "cults" by their opponents. These may include political, psychotherapeutic or marketing groups. The term has also been applied to certain human-potential and self-improvement organizations.
Stigmatization
Swami Prabhupada, founder of the American movement for "Khrisha Consciousness."
Because of the increasingly pejorative use of the terms "cult" over recent decades, many argue that the term should be avoided.
Researcher Amy Ryan has argued for the need to differentiate those groups that may be dangerous from groups that are more benign.[6] Ryan notes the sharp differences between definition from cult opponents, who tend to focus on negative characteristics, and sociologists, who aim to create definitions that are value-free. These definitions of religion itself has political and ethical impact beyond scholarly debate. Washington DC legal scholar Bruce J. Casino presents the issue as crucial to international human rights law. Limiting the definition of religion may interfere with freedom of religion, while too broad a definition may give some dangerous or abusive groups "a limitless excuse for avoiding all unwanted legal obligations."[7]
In 1999, the Maryland State Task Force to Study the Effects of Cult Activities on Public Senior Higher Education Institutions admitted in its final report that it had "decided not to attempt to define the world 'cult'" and proceeded to avoid the word entirely in its final report, except in its title and introduction.[8]
Leaving a "cult"
A major contention of the anti-cult movement, in the 1970s, had been that "cult members" had lost their ability to choose and only rarely left their groups without "deprogramming." This view has been largely discredited, as there are clearly at least three ways people leave a new religious movement. These are 1) by their own decision, 2) through expulsion, and 3) by intervention (exit counseling or deprogramming). ("Exit counseling" is defined as a voluntary intervention in which the member agrees to the discussion and is free to leave. "Deprogramming" involves forcible confinement against the person's will.)
Most authors agree that some people experience problems after leaving a "cult." These include negative reactions in the individual leaving the group as well as negative responses from the group such as shunning, which is practiced by some but not all NRMs and older religions alike. There are disagreements regarding the degree and frequency of such problems, however, and regarding the cause. Eileen Barker mentions that some former members may not take new initiatives for quite a long time after disaffiliation from the NRM. However, she also points out that leaving is not nearly so difficult as imagined. Indeed, as many as 90 percent of those who join a high intensity group ultimately decide to leave.[9]
Exit Counselor Carol Giambalvo believes most people leaving a cult have associated psychological problems, such as feelings of guilt or shame, depression, feeling of inadequacy, or fear, that are independent of their manner of leaving the cult.[10] However, sociologists David Bromley and Jeffrey Hadden note a lack of empirical support for alleged consequences of having been a member of a cult or sect, and substantial empirical evidence against it. They cite the fact that a large proportion of people who get involved in NRMs leave within two years; the overwhelming proportion of those who leave do so of their own volition; and that 67 percent felt "wiser for the experience."[11]
Criticism by former members
The role of former members in the controversy surrounding cults has also been widely studied by social scientists. Former members in some cases become public opponents against their former group. The former members' motivations, the roles they play in the anti-cult movement, and the validity of their testimonies are controversial. Scholars suspect that at least some of their narratives—especially concerning so-called "mind control"—are colored by a 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.
Moreover, although some cases of abuse are incontrovertible, hostile ex-members have been shown to shade the truth and blow out of proportion minor incidents, turning them into major abuses.[12] Sociologist and legal scholar James T. Richardson contends that because there are a large number of NRMs, a tendency exists to make unjustified generalizations about them, based on a select sample of observations of life in such groups or the testimonies of (ex-)members.[13]
Governments and "cults"
Some governments have taken restrictive measures against "cults" and "sects." In the 1970s, some U.S. judges issued "conservatorship" orders revoking the freedom of an NRM to remain in his or her group so as to facilitate a deprogramming attempt. These actions were later ruled unconstitutional be higher courts. Several attempts at state legislation to legalize deprogramming likewise failed as the "mind control" theory came to be discredited in courts. However, it has been argued that the "brainwashing" theory promulgated by the anti-cult movement contributed to U.S. actions leading to the deaths of close to 100 members of the Branch Davidian group in Waco, Texas.[14] It has also been alleged that negative perceptions of a group by prosecutors was a factor in the income tax case against the Reverend Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church, which resulted in his serving more than a year in prison in the mid 1980s.[15]
More recently, governments in Europe have sought to control "sects" through various state actions. The annual report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom have criticized these initiatives as "…fueled an atmosphere of intolerance toward members of minority religions." The U.S. State Department has criticized France, Germany, Russia, and several other European states for repressive measures against "sects." In Japan, deprogramming cases still find their way into the civil courts, while police allegedly refuse to bring criminal charges against the perpetrators. Meanwhile the Chinese government has become notorious for its mistreatment of members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement and other groups denounced by the government as "heretical cults."
See also
Notes
- ↑ Cult, Dictionary.com. Retrieved August 23, 2008.
- ↑ Peter L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (New York: Doubleday Anchor Books 1969), 29-51.
- ↑ Stark, 1996.
- ↑ Singer, 2003.
- ↑ Barker, 1984.
- ↑ Amy Ryan, New Religions and the Anti-Cult Movement. Retrieved July 22, 2008.
- ↑ Bruce J. Casino, Defining Religion in American Law, Religious Freedom.
- ↑ Task Force Exectutive Summary, Religious Freedom.
- ↑ Barker, 1983.
- ↑ Carol Giambalvo, Post-cult problems.
- ↑ Brombly and Hadden, 1993, 75-97.
- ↑ Gordon Melton, Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory. Retrieved July 22, 2008.
- ↑ Richardson, 1989.
- ↑ D. Anthony, T. Robbins, S. Barrie-Anthony, "Cult and Anticult Totalism: Reciprocal Escalation and Violence," Terrorism and Political Violence Spring 2002: 211-240.
- ↑ Sherwood, 1991.
References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees
- Barker, Eileen. The Making of a Moonie: Choice or Brainwashing? Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1984. ISBN 978-0631132462
- New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction. London: H.M.S.O., 1989. ISBN 978-0113409273
- Bromley, David G., and Jeffrey K. Hadden. The Handbook on Cults and Sects in America. Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press, 1993. ISBN 978-1559387156
- Bromley, David G., and J. Gordon Melton. Cults, Religion, and Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. ISBN 0521668980
- Lalich, Janja. Bounded Choice: True Believers and Charismatic Cults. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. ISBN 0520240189
- Gordon, Melton J. Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. New York: Garland Pub, 1992. ISBN 0815311400
- Richardson, James T. "The Psychology of Induction: A Review and Interpretation." In Marc Galanter (ed.), Cults and New Religious Movements. American Psychological Assn., 1989. ISBN 0890422125
- Sherwood, Carlton. Inquisition: The Persecution and Prosecution of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 1991. ISBN 089526532X
- Singer, Margaret Thaler. Cults in Our Midst. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003. ISBN 0787967416
- Stark, Rodney, and William Sims Bainbridge. A Theory of Religion. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1996. ISBN 978-0813523309
- Tourish, Dennis, and Tim Wohlforth. On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 2000. ISBN 0765606399
- Zablocki, Benjamin David, and Thomas Robbins. Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001. ISBN 0802081886
External links
All links retrieved January 11, 2024.
Credits
New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article
in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:
The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:
Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.
