Wednesday, April 15, 2009

CULTS: Danger Signs in Cults

Developing objective early warning signs:

If one wishes to develop objective criteria for distinguishing harmful or potentially harmful religious organizations from harmless religions, one needs to place oneself in the position of a public policy maker. From this perspective, religions that raise the most concern are those groups that tangibly, physically harm members and/or non-members, or engage in other anti-social/illegal acts. However, a public policy maker might well respond that this post facto criterion is too little too late, and that what is needed are criteria that could act as early warning signs--criteria indicating that a previously innocuous group is potentially "going bad." The following discussion will make a stab at developing such criteria, with the caveat that the presence of the less serious factors listed below in any given group does not automatically mean they are on the verge of becoming the next Heaven's Gate.

Charismatic Leader: As part of this discussion, we shall be referring to a few false criteria for distinguishing a healthy from an unhealthy religion. In the first place, the mere fact that a group is headed up by a charismatic leader does not automatically raise a red flag. This is because new religions are much like new businesses: new businesses are almost always the manifestation of the vision and work of a single entrepreneur. In contrast, few if any successful businesses are the outgrowth of the work of a committee.

Divine Authority: Also, to found a religion, a leader usually makes some sort of claim to special insight or to special revelation that legitimates both the new religion and the leader's right to lead. The founder may even claim to be prophet, messiah or avatar. While many critics of alternative religions have asserted that the assumption of such authority is in itself a danger sign, too many objectively harmless groups have come into being with the leader asserting divine authority for such claims to be meaningful danger signs.

Use of Authority: Far more important than one's claim to authority is what one does with the authority once he or she attracts followers who choose to recognize it. A minister or guru who focuses her or his pronouncements on the interpretation of scripture or on other matters having to do with religion proper is far less problematic than a leader who takes it upon her- or himself to make decisions in the personal lives of individual parishioners, such as dictating (as opposed to suggesting) who and when one will marry. The line between advising and ordering others with respect to their personal lives can, however, be quite thin. A useful criterion for determining whether or not this line has been crossed is to examine what happens when one acts against the guru's advice: If one can respectfully disagree about a particular item of personal--as opposed to religious--advice without suffering negative consequences as a result, then the leadership dynamics within the group are healthy with respect to authority issues.

One of the clearest signs that leaders are overstepping their proper sphere of authority is when they articulate certain ethical guidelines that everyone must follow except for the guru or minister. This is especially the case with a differential sexual ethic that restricts the sexual activity of followers but allows leaders to initiate liaisons with whomever they choose.

Above the Law: Perhaps the most serious danger sign is when a religious group places itself above the law, although there are some nuances that make this point trickier than it might first appear. All of us, in some sphere of life, place ourselves above the law, if only when we go a few miles per hour over the speed limit or fudge a few figures on our income tax returns. Also, when push comes to shove, almost every religion in the world would be willing to assert that divine law takes precedence over human law--should they ever come into conflict. Hence a group that, for example, solicits donations in an area where soliciting is forbidden should not, on that basis alone, be viewed as danger to society. Exceptions should also be made for groups or individuals who make a very public protest against certain laws judged as immoral, as when a contentious objector goes to jail rather than be drafted into the military.

On the other hand, it should be clear that a group leader who consistently violates serious laws has developed a rationale that could easily be used to legitimate more serious anti-social acts. Examples that come readily to mind are Marshall Hertiff, founder/leader of Heaven's Gate, who regularly ducked out on motel bills and who was once even arrested for stealing a rental car, and Swami Kirtananda, founder of the New Vrindavan community, who was caught authorizing the stealing of computer software before being arrested for ordering the murder of a community critic. Documentable child abuse and other illegalities committed within the organization are also covered by this criterion.

End of the World Scenarios: Another misconceived criterion is perceiving groups as dangerous because of apocalyptic theologies. Almost every religion in the larger Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition has an apocalyptic theology, even the traditional peace churches that forbid members from participating in the military. Thus, contrary to the assertions of some contemporary critics of religion, having an apocalyptic theology does not, in itself, raise a red flag. This is because in most apocalyptic scenarios it is God and his angels who fight the final battle, not flesh-and-blood human beings. The human role is spiritual, and the "saved" fight a spiritual war, not a literal, physical war.

An apocalyptic theology is only dangerous when individual followers believe they are going to be called upon to be foot soldiers in God's army, and prepare themselves by stocking up on weapons and ammunition. Groups that come to mind here are some of the Identity Christian churches who see themselves as preparing to fight a literal war with God's enemies. On the other hand, a community's possession of firearms--in the absence of such a theology of physical confrontation--is probably not dangerous, if no other danger signs are present. If the simple possession of firearms by members was a significant danger sign, then the Southern Baptist Convention would be the most dangerous "cult" in the nation.

Salvation: Another false, yet frequently voiced criterion is that religious groups are dangerous which see only themselves as saved and the rest of the world as damned. Like apocalypticism, this trait is far too widespread among traditional religions to constitute an authentic danger sign. A more meaningful characteristic should be how a religion actually treats non-members.

Group Isolation: Another criterion is a group's relative isolation. This trait is somewhat more complex than the others we have examined. On the one hand, there are abundant examples of traditional religions establishing communities or monastic centers apart from the larger society that have posed no danger to anyone. On the other hand, some of the worst abuses have taken place in the segregated (usually communal) sub-societies of certain minority religions. From the suicidal violence of People's Temple to the externally-directed violence of AUM Shinrikyo, it was the social dynamics found in an isolated or semi-isolated community that allowed such extreme actions to be contemplated.

In order to flag this characteristic while simultaneously avoiding stigmatizing every religion that sets up a segregated society as being potentially dangerous, it might be best to invert this trait and state it as a counter-indicator. In other words, rather than asserting that any religion with a partially isolated community is potentially dangerous, let us instead assert that the relative lack of such boundaries indicates that the group in question is almost certainly not dangerous.

Deception: A final early warning sign is a group's readiness to deceive outsiders. Some critics have asserted that a recruiter who invites a potential convert to a dinner without mentioning that the event is being sponsored by such-and-such church is deceptive. Others have criticized religions possessing a hierarchical system of knowledge to which only initiates are privy. These kinds of criticisms are silly. When a guru publicly asserts that no one in his organization is involved in illegal drugs and police later find a LSD laboratory in his basement, that's deception.

Warning signs:

To summarize, the traits we designated above as early warning signs of 'bad religion'" are:

The organization is willing to place itself above the law. With the exceptions noted earlier, this is probably the most important characteristic.

The leadership dictates (rather than suggests) important personal (as opposed to spiritual) details of followers' lives, such as whom to marry, what to study in college, etc.

The leader sets forth ethical guidelines members must follow but from which the leader is exempt.

The group is preparing to fight a literal, physical Armageddon against other human beings.

The leader regularly makes public assertions that he or she knows is false and/or the group has a policy of routinely deceiving outsiders.

Finally, we noted that, while many benign religions establish semi-segregated communities, socially dangerous religions are almost always isolated or partially isolated from the larger society.

These five traits are about as close as one can get to legitimate, objective criteria for judging whether or not a given religious organization is going--or has gone--"bad." With the exception of placing the group's actions above the law, none of these characteristics, taken by themselves, are necessarily cause for alarm. On the other hand, a group possessing more than one or two of the above traits might well bear closer scrutiny. As a corollary to this line of analysis, minority religions possessing none of the above traits are, from a public policy standpoint, almost certainly harmless.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/safe_sec.htm

6 comments:

  1. Euro,
    Good article - but too long.
    Keep postings to about 2 paragraphs.(able to read whole posting without scrolling down.) Provide a link with more detail - if people are interested in reading more.

    Please cease in answering back to your "detractors" in factnet. Just because they are "anti-LaRouche" doesn't mean they are sane. I think you are very sane and very correct in what you are saying there. It's definitely not right - of some - making the negative comments toward you. I myself do not completely trust them. There's only about 4 of them - they do not represent the whole ex-member community.


    This is I think my third comment to you - so please don't confuse me with any other Anonymous's posts.

    Thanks for referring to LaR as Lyndon - it's easier on my stomach that way.

    Keep up the great work!

    ReplyDelete
  2. You can create an account on the gmail if you want. An anonymous accout which you can use for contacts.

    /T

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can try to make it shorter, but in that case I need to post the things somewhere else. I will think about it!

    And please get in touch with me. Create an acoount at gmail, or use safemail: http://www.safe-mail.net/

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kan inte du skriva på svenska? Europeiska Arbetarepartiet har gjort mycket skada i Sverige.

    Jag minns piltavlorna med Palmes ansikte på och bilderna på Palme som Sveriges Khomaini och hur man sa att palme var sinnesjuk och som satan.

    Är du svensk borde du prata mer om EAP än om Lyndon laRouche, tycker jag

    ReplyDelete
  5. The person above asked if I should not write more about EAP. The person remembers all the attacks on the Swedish former prime minister Olof Palme (who was shot by someone 1986). Palme was described as a new Khomeini and as insane and Satan.

    I answer that I will, but Lyndon LaRouche is an international phenomena!

    Jag kommer att göra det men LaRoucherörelsen finns överallt i världen och det är genom att informera om den internationellt OCH HÄR, som man kan varna folk om vad LaRoucherörelsen och EAP är.

    Jag ska skriva mer på svenska!

    /T

    ReplyDelete
  6. Emmanuel GoldsteinApril 20, 2009 at 12:50 PM

    Om jag får inflika en sak så tenderar jag att hålla med personen som kallar sig anonym. EAP syns på många håll ännu och de har en del ungdomar runt sig för närvarande.

    EAP är vad då?

    ReplyDelete