Panel Discussion
One of the sessions at AFF's 1999 annual conference was a panel discussion involving representatives from 13 cult educational organizations in Europe, North America and the Far East. Though sharing a common interest in the cult issue, panelists had diverse backgrounds. There were researchers, mental health professionals, lawyers, a journalist, former group members, religious professionals, a judge, a medical doctor and administrators of organizations. The organizations they represented are also diverse. Some try to build upon clinical and/or scholarly research; some are sustained by the dedication of families and/or former group members who volunteer time to this issue; some approach the issue from a Christian perspective and some are governmental entities.

The discussion's goal was to identify a set of action recommendations on which all participants could agree. The method consisted of a period devoted to brainstorming followed by discussion aimed at categorizing, consolidating and evaluating suggestions in order to assemble a list of action recommendations on which a consensus could be established. After listing the consensus items, I offer a commentary on the panel's topic. I take sole responsibility for the ideas expressed in the commentary, which should not be interpreted as a consensus statement.

Consensus Actions
After the brainstorming session, panelists grouped individual items in broader categories and put aside items on which there was disagreement. All participants endorsed the following actions. Although this list of actions reflects a consensus of the participants, it should be kept in mind that participants might disagree on precisely what these items mean, how to prioritize them and how to implement them.

• Conduct more research.
• Provide education on critical thinking.
• List and examine laws, policies and legal cases in various countries.
• Continue to have international meetings
• Enforce existing laws.
• Work more effectively with the media.
• Help families and ex-members.
• Encourage reform and reformers.
• Encourage public debate.
• Educate professionals.

Commentary
The cult problem has three significant dimensions: harm, religious freedom and remedies.

Although some cult spokespersons and sympathizers may argue that cultic environments do not harm people, many sympathizers or critics would probably agree with the following proposition: Some groups under some conditions harm some people sometimes. To argue that groups never harm people contradicts incontrovertible evidence (Aum Shinrikyo, Solar Temple, Jonestown) and implies that, unless one holds the absurd belief that no group ever harmed any individual, some special factor immunizes cults (or "new religious movements") against those group dynamics that may cause harm. Why "new religious movements" should be so uniquely immune to the potential for harm that exists in all groups is a question that seems never to be addressed, probably because no plausible defense could be made of such a privileged position for "new religious movements."

Some might ask why people single out cults that are subject to the same kinds of dynamics as other groups. There are three vital differences that justify paying special attention to cults. First, abundant evidence indicates that harm is more prevalent and/or more serious in some groups (Aum Shinrikyo) than in contemporary mainstream religions or other established organizations in democratic societies. Second, the harms most commonly associated with mainstream religions and other established organizations (e.g., the problem of sexual abuse of children) tend to reflect individual pathology, not an abusive social structure. Third, mainstream religions and other established organizations have had the time to develop accountability mechanisms that tend to come into play, however belatedly, when abuse occurs. Although, these accountability mechanisms are by no means perfect, they do afford a measure of protection to society. Cults, on the other hand, have usually not had enough time and/or motivation to develop accountability mechanisms. Those that have done so or are in the process of doing so (ISKCON being a notable example) should be studied closely, for an increased understanding of this process may make it easier to persuade other controversial groups to follow along this path.

Any debate on the question of harm, then, should focus not on whether it occurs, but rather on:

• Nature of the harm;
• Prevalence of harm, within and across groups;
• Causes of harm;
• Degree to which harm-producing factors operate in specific groups;
• How to limit harm.

These are all empirical questions that, in theory, may be answered by a well-designed program of scientific research that would undoubtedly take many years to complete. Existing research sheds light on these questions, but it doesn't provide definitive answers (contact AFF for more information). Hence, individuals of integrity may make varying judgments about aspects of the harm question. Some, for example, may read the evidence as suggesting a high level of harm, while others see a low level. Unfortunately, the polarization that has occurred in this field tends to inhibit communication that would enable interested persons to understand fully why others draw different conclusions from the same evidence.

The list of consensus actions suggests that panelists recognized that the level of knowledge and understanding in this field is not as high as it could be. They agreed that more research is necessary, that the public debate on the subject should be pursued and that more international meetings should occur to facilitate information exchange and dialogue. The panelists also agreed that reform movements and reformers within controversial groups should be encouraged. This last action recommendation probably reflects participants' positive perceptions of another panel discussion at this conference, "Can Cultic Groups Change: The Case of ISKCON." This panel discussed the positive changes that have occurred within ISKCON (Hare Krishna movement) during the past 10–15 years. Since organizational representatives believe that such reform should be encouraged in other groups, the prime motivation of these organizations is a desire to help people who have been hurt and to prevent harm to others. There is not evidence of blind prejudice against any groups outside the mainstream.

Some cult spokespersons and academic sympathizers have implied that accusations of harm related to cultic groups (new religious movements) are incompatible with respect for religious freedom. The message seems to be that if one says anything "bad" about new religious movements, then one is necessarily against religious freedom. This proposition is patently absurd. If one is against religiously based genital mutilation, one is not necessarily against religous freedom. Neither is it proof that one must be against religious freedom if he criticizes so-called "Christian" groups that advocate racial purification.

The invocation of religious freedom in response to accusations of harm is a ploy designed to draw attention away from the evidence on which the accusations are based. Rather than simple harm or religious freedom, the issue is reconciling and balancing competing social values, only one of which is religious freedom. One cannot resolve these conflicts by denying that they exist, which, for all intents and purposes, occurs when one becomes so preoccupied with one competing social value that he excludes consideration of all others. That exclusive social value may be religious freedom, but it may also be harm. Simplistic and one-dimensional perspectives can arise on both sides of the debate.

Some cult sympathizers are perceived as advocating such one-dimensional perspectives. Although they may offer thoughtful criticisms of proposed remedies, they rarely propose alternate solutions to the problems under discussion. Consequently, they are perceived as asking, "What cult problem?" Their views, then, tend to be discounted by those who do see a problem calling for attention. As a result, these sympathizers are effectively removed from the playing field, the collective effort to reconcile conflicting values by finding remedies that appropriately address harm while simultaneously respecting and protecting religious freedom and other human rights.

In a similar way, some cult critics are perceived as being so preoccupied with harm that they will run roughshod over human rights. Some cult sympathizers may see, perhaps with justification, these cult critics' proposed solutions as Trojan horses covering a hidden repressive agenda or as suggestions that discount human rights. If the cult sympathizers are undiscriminating, they will then oppose all proposed solutions and reinforce the perception that these particular sympathizers say, "What cult problem?" This dichotomy is unfortunate, for even individuals on opposite extremes of the critic-sympathizer debate may make valid and useful points.

It is important to note that various countries have taken varying approaches to the religious freedom issue concerning cults. I am not a legal expert and am not familiar with the specific situations in different countries, so I speak with some hesitation. I do tend to agree, however, with a panel discussion comment, stressing that the issue is not whether particular democracies affirm human rights (for they do), but how these diverse countries use their laws to protect those rights and make judgments designed to reconcile conflicting rights. It was noted that the same US State Department that has criticized certain European governments on human rights issues related to cults requires visa applicants to declare, among other things, whether or not they are members of a communist party. I do not put forth this point in order to advocate any particular governmental position, but to suggest that we closely examine cultural differences and political dimensions of the issue before weighing in on one side or another.

• Preventing harm before it occurs;
• Helping those who have been harmed;
• Punishing those who have inflicted harm that is illegal or that results from illegal acts;
• Rebuking those who have inflicted legal but unethical harm.

The panelists agreed on actions that cover all four of these categories: prevention, assistance, law-enforcement and criticism. Research is relevant to all categories, for the specifics of what we decide to do rests upon our knowledge and understanding. The more we know and understand, the more informed our actions will be.

Panelists agreed that education is central to efforts to prevent harm. Public discussion and education of professionals (who minister to the public in various ways) should be encouraged for two reasons: (1) so that those who haven't been adversely affected will be better informed and able to defend themselves, should they belong to or consider joining a group; and (2) so that those who have been affected will learn where to get help. Young people, who are especially vulnerable, should be taught how to think critically so that they will be less likely to be seduced by sophistry and/or psychological manipulation. Furthermore, reformers within controversial groups should be encouraged and supported in order to decrease the probability of future harm.

Helping ex-members and families who have been harmed or who have loved at-risk individuals is central to most of the organizations' missions. AFF, for example, maintains a Cult Information Service, runs workshops for families and ex-members and publishes a number of books, videos and reports designed to help affected persons.

Panelists strongly agreed that existing laws should be enforced and were generally open to the possibility that new laws be considered, though caution should be observed.

Although the panelists did not explicitly advocate category four (rebuking those who inflict legal but unethical harm), their discussion implied an endorsement of this remedy. One of the primary functions of public discussion of this issue is to criticize questionable practices of controversial groups.

Although such criticism may not penetrate the defensive boundaries of some, it may have a positive effect on other groups (e.g., where there is even a nascent reform movement or some mechanisms for accountability). Criticism, however, should be presented respectfully, discerningly and forcefully when appropriate. Blanket condemnations of groups tend not to contain much useful information. Specific, detailed and subtle criticisms, on the other hand, can be useful to all parties, including those who are sincerely interested in reforming their groups.

In my view, it is vital to distinguish between criticism of unethical but legal practices and punishment of illegal practices. For example, most people in democratic societies would probably agree that it is unethical for a religious group to lie about its identity in order to persuade nonmembers to come to a function aimed at recruiting them. Most people would probably also agree that criticism of such deception is warranted, if not obligatory. But such deception, however reprehensible, is not necessarily illegal (although it may be, depending upon its nature and effects and the legal traditions of the country in which it occurs). The law may sometimes tolerate a certain level of deception because outlawing "micro-harms" may have unintended effects that are more harmful than the "micro-harm" that is outlawed. Consequently, arguing against an overreaching legal proposal does not necessarily mean that one is against all legal controls, for one may believe ethical criticism is more appropriate than legal restraint in that instance. Nor does advocacy of legal controls in some cases mean that one believes that legal control to right all perceived wrongs is always called for. Again, the issue is not either/or. It is a complex process of balancing competing rights and social values.

Unfortunately, the polarization of views that has occurred in this field magnifies suspicions among the participants. It sometimes seems that views are so polarized that people in the two camps do not communicate, even when they talk to each other. Moreover, they rarely appear to read materials put out by the other camp. This informational isolation diminishes the understanding of both camps. Cult sympathizers do not appreciate the evidence attesting to the nature and magnitude of harm, which means that their understanding of their chosen field of study, i.e., new religious movements, contains a large blind spot. Cult critics do not benefit from the scholarship and research produced in the so-called sympathizer camp, which means that their proposed remedies may be based on incomplete information.

If the dialogue and open exchange of information advocated by the panelists continues to occur, then proposals about what should be done about cults will be more likely to be fair, informed and effective.

Dr. Michael D. Langone is Executive Director of AFF and the Editor of Cultic Studies Journal. He may be contacted by writing to: AFF, PMB 313, P. O. Box 413005, Naples, Florida 34101-3005. He can also be reached by calling 941/514-3081, fax 941/649-2267 or e-mail at: aff@csj.org.

For information regarding AFF's annual conference, "Cults and the Millennium," April 28-29, 2000 in Seattle, Washington visit their website at www.csj.org.

©1999 Dr. Michael D. Langone