Opposition to cults and new religious movements comes from several sources with diverse concerns and has been and still is sometimes intense. Most of the opposition are cult watchers that collect and publish critical information about one or several groups they consider cults.

Cult watching groups

Cult watching groups (CWGs) disseminate information about "cults" in a way aimed at changing public and goverment perception of them and changing public policy toward them. This can have the effect of increasing or decreasing the level of violence perpetrated on or by these groups, depending on the type of CWG.

Sociologist Eileen Barker, described by critics as a "cult apologist", has identified five types of CWG:[1]

1. cult-awareness groups (CAGs)
2. counter-cult groups (CCGs)
3. research-orientated groups (ROGs)
4. human-rights groups (HRGs)
5. cult-defender groups (CDGs)

Types of opposition

Dissafected individuals (apostates)

Disaffected individuals (apostates) of a certain cult or New Religious movement (NRM) sometimes form loose networks, often with an active presence on the internet. They are concerned about harm to members of cults, including wasted time and money. They watch and criticize their former group and provide information and perspective to the public they claim is not disclosed by this group, purportedly to enable current and prospective follower to make an informed choice about joining and staying with the group. The apostates' motivations, the roles they play in the anti-cult movement, the validity of their testimony, and the kinds of narratives they construct to discredit their previous groups are highly controversial. See also Apostacy in new religious movements.

Traditional religion

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

The anti-cult movement

The anti-cult movement (ACM) opposes several NRMs with a concern about harm for the members of cults and society. They grew out of concerned parents whose children joined high-demand groups they considered negative in the USA in the 1970s. One of the characteristics of the ACM is their tendency to make general complaints about "cults" based on accusations of organizational hierarchical structure, charismatic leadership, thought reform, mind control, and brainwashing, instead of focusing on specific problems and abuses that take place in some of these cults. The existence of mind control is widely disputed, and sometimes dismissed as pseudo-scientific by the psychiatric establishment and social scientists. A 1983 amicus curiæ brief by the American Psychological Association states that the brainwashing hypotheses are "little more than uninformed speculation, based on skewed data" and that "[t]he coercive persuasion theory ... is not a meaningful scientific concept".

The ACM tends to distrust the information from these cults and prefers to get their information from disaffected former members. Another characteristic is their involvement in exit counseling.

Skepticism

Skeptics are often concerned about what they consider false miracles performed or endorsed by the leadership of the group. They also criticizee the alleged idiosyncratic, bizarre, irrational belief systems of these groups. See also Allegations against cults made by skeptics.

Opposition to cults: a taxonomy by professor Hadden

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

Note: Professor Hadden was accused to have been not critical enough of cults and being a cult apologist by several anti-cult groups. [2]

Religious opposition

• 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 metaphore used;
• Opposition to cults serves two important functions: protects members (especially the youth) from heresy, and increases solidarity among the faithful.

Secular opposition

• 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.

Apostates

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

• Apostates and those who engages 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.

Entrepreneurial opposition

• 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.

Academic Study

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 cults in general are often polarized with widely divergent opinions, not only among current followers and disaffected 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.

All academics, including Melton, agree that some groups have been problematic and sometimes very problematic but they disagree to what extent cults in general are harmful for their members and society.

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. [3]

Other academics challenge the reliabity of the apostate's tesimony. 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 his own past and to excuse his 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. Wilson also challenges the reliability of the apostate's testimony by saying that "[apostates] always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader."

Bromley and Shuppe while discussing the role of anecdotal atrocity stories by apostates, proposes that these are likely to paint a caricature of the group, shaped by the apostate's current role rather than his actual experience in the group, and question's their motives and rational. In studies by Lewis Carter and David Bromley, it is presented that the onus of pathology experienced by former members of new religions movements shifted from these groups to the coercive activities of the anti-cult movement. As a result of this study, the treatment (coerced or voluntary) of former members as people in need of psychological assistance largely ceased. These studies also point out that the lack of any widespread need for psychological help by former members of new religions has in itself become the strongest evidence refuting early sweeping condemnations of new religions as causes of psychological trauma.

The APA, Margaret Singer and the brainwashing theories

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 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 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. When the DIMPAC report finally appeared in 1987, the APA rejected it because it "lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur".

In their Handbook of Cults and Sects in America, Bromley and Hadden present the ideological foundation of the brainwashing theories, and demonstrate its lack of scientific support. They argue that the simplistic perspective inherent in the brainwashing metaphor appeals to those attempting to locate a 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 anti-cult activists now concede 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 anti-cult activists like Steven Hassan 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".

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 excercise 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.

Pressure from cult-watching groups

Other scholars challenging some of the premises of the anti-cult movement such as the existence of mind control and the reliability of apostate testimonies, include Brian R. Wilson, Massimo Introvigne, and Anson Shupe. David G. Bromley questions the veracity only in case the former members are pressured by a countermovement to put them in a theoretical or religious framework, such as the brainwashing theory.

Some anti-cult activists, like Anton Hein , are highly critical of scholars, like Melton, that do not agree with their views and use the word "cult apologist" for them. They accuse them of being naive, bad scholars and above all reproach them of 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:

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. [5]

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

In a paper paper presented to the 2002 Society for the Scientific Study of Religion Conference[6], 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:

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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

Opposition in the media

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."

Larry R. Moffitt, Vice President of the Tiempos del Mundo newspapers, 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 also

• Freedom of religion
• Religious pluralism

References

1. 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 0-89042-212-5
2. Hadden, Jeffrey K., The Anti-Cult Movement Available online
3. Wilson, Brian R., Apostates and New Religious Movements, Oxford, England 1994
4. Tomas Robbin 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 0-684-18861-9
5. 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
6. Horowitz, Michael J., Breaking the Chains Around the Gulags of Faith, acceptance speech on receiving the William Wilberforce Award, February 5, 1997.
7. Dart, John and Allen, Jimmy; Bridging the Gap: Religion and the News Media, Freedom Forum First Amendment Center, Vanderbilt University, Sept. 1993
8. Beckford, James A., Cult Controversies: The Societal Response to New Religious Movements, London, Tavistock, 1985, p. 235
9. 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
10. 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
11. Hadden, Jeffrey K., The Brainwashing Controversy
12. 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.