The anti-cult movement (ACM) is defined as organized opposition to new religious movements. Although not necessarily belonging to an organization, individual activists who oppose cults, new religious movement, or sects as a profession are considered as part of the anti-cult movement. The major American anti-cult organization, the American Family Foundation opposes several groups that it consider harmful. The term was coined as part of the controversy surrounding religious cults. In the 1960s and early 1970s, middle-class youths in the United States started to follow new religious movements, such as the Children of God, the Unification Church, the Hare Krishnas, the Divine Light Mission, and Scientology, that were foreign to their families and often at odds with the traditional middle-class values and ideas. The families of these young people organized themselves because they became worried about what they considered bizarre belief systems and the behavior of their children. These organizations of concerned relatives grew into the anti-cult movement. In contrast to the Christian counter cult activists, anti-cult activists are generally not concerned about about theological issues, such as heresy but instead are more concerned about emotional, social, financial, and economic consequences of cult involvement.

Anti-cult brainwashing theories and de-programming practices

The most important addition of anti-cult scholars, like Margaret Singer, was the application of existing theory on "brainwashing", or "coercive persuasion", to cult involvement. According to this theory, some followers of "cults" are held there by some psychological phenomenon, not fully explained by modern psychology but presumably similar to hypnosis, which impairs their judgement regarding the cult. Some anti-cult theoreticians argue that if a person has been deprived of their own free will by brainwashing, treatment to restore their free will must be initiated even if it is initially against their will.

These anti-cult theories of brainwashing, mind control, or “coercive persuasion” were rejected in 1983 by the American Psychological Association(APA) in an amicus curiæ brief stating that "The coercive persuasion theory ... is not a meaningful scientific concept", that "The methodology of Drs. Singer and Benson has been repudiated by the scientific community" and that the hypotheses advanced by Singer are "little more than uninformed speculation, based on skewed data." [1] (http://www.cesnur.org/testi/molko_brief.htm).

Although there is precedent for this in the treatment of certain mental illnesses that are medically and legally recognized as depriving sufferers of their ability to make appropriate decisions for themselves, the practice of forcing treatment on a presumed victim of brainwashing (a practice known as "deprogramming") has always been controversial and has been frequently adjudged illegal as well. Only a small fraction of the anti-cult movement has ever been involved in deprogramming. Deprogramming was criticized by human rights organizations such as the ACLU and Human Rights Watch, and many deprogrammers, including its pioneer Ted Patrick, served prison terms for the practice. As a result, it has been abandoned by the anti-cult movement in the USA, in favor of the voluntary, legal practice of exit counseling.

Apostates and Apologists

The opponents of cults (most of them ex-members or apostates) have greatly benefited from the Internet. Many new religious movements are now the targets of web sites on which disaffected ex-members warn the public of their purported dangers and harm. Before the popularity of the Internet, ex-members had far more difficulty coming into contact with other ex-members and gathering and spreading information. These opponents typically disclose unflattering perspectives, testimonials, and information that these religious movements themselves do not disclose. They assert that by disseminating this information they perform a public service that enables current and prospective member to make an informed choice about joining or staying with a religious movement. Social scientists, such as Professor Bryan Wilson have studied the phenomenon called atrocity story as it pertains to apostates of NRMs, explaining that ".. to vindicate himself in regard to his volte face requires a plausible explanation of both his (usually sudden) adherence to his erstwhile faith and his no less sudden abandonment and condemnation of it" and "... [the apostate], seeks to reintegrate with the wider society which he now seeks to influence, and perhaps to mobilize, against the religious group which he has lately abandoned."

Some anti-cult activists are very critical of scholars who are less critical than they about cults. Anti-cult activists use the word cult apologist for them. These anti-cult activists accuse the cult apologists 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. These scholars, in turn assert that "Cult apologists, are", by the way, those "claiming to champion religious freedom and religious tolerance."[2] (http://www.cesnur.org/2001/london2001/cowan.htm). Scholarly cooperation between these anti cult-activists and so called "cult apologists" seems to be virtually non-existent. Both claim to be objective. Many sociologists, for example Eileen Barker suggests to substitute "new religious movement" (NRM) for the loaded term "cult".

Criticisms and controversies

Critics of the anti-cult movement often accuse that it has done the following:

• created a moral panic and witch hunt through exaggeration of the harm and dangers of new religious movements;
• generalized inappropriately, lumping together relatively harmless groups with dangerous groups, such as the Peoples Temple;
• endorsed pseudoscientific theories regarding brainwashing and mind control;
• infringed religious freedom through deprogramming;
• polarized the debate over new religious movements due to its focus on the negative aspects of these groups.

Those criticized, however, often reply that they are being unfairly lumped into one large generalization dubbed "the anti-cult movement" by the very groups that are protesting the unfairness of being compared to proven destructive cults.

Vocal critics of the anti-cult movement include J. Gordon Melton, the sociologist David G. Bromley, and to a lesser extent the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR).

According to Massimo Introvigne from the CESNUR, the anti-cult movement advances the following apology:

• We favor religious freedom, but "cults and "sects" are not religions.
• When pressed to define what is a cult and what is a religion, anti-cultists reply:
  • People join a religion voluntarily, but they are induced to join a cult through psychological manipulation (ie."brainwashing").
• When confronted with skepticism from scholars who have refuted the accusations of "brainwashing" and psychological manipulation, the anti-cultists state that:
  • Scholars can't be trusted.
  • The way to determine if a group is a cult is to ask the people who have left the organization (ex-followers or apostates).
• When challenged that studies have shown that many more people who leave such groups state that they were not manipulated as those who state they were and that the majority of those who leave these organizations are indifferent, the anti-cultists then assure legislators that:
  • There are organizations (anti-cult organizations) who specialize in these matters and they can help determine who are reliable witnesses (referring to those apostates who are working with them).

The Association of World Academics for Religious Education (AWARE) claims that the the anti-cult movement is vested interest in maintaining the conflict and "have been unresponsive to objective scholarly studies, and has proceeded with business as usual, as if these studies were non-existent. Scholars whose work directly challenges the ‘cult’ stereotype are dismissed [by the anti-cult movement] as either naive or as being in collusion with the cults."

The religious movements may see the activities of their opponents as unjustified stigmatization and persecution. See Hate groups and NRMs

List of anti-cult groups

• The American Family Foundation. Founded in 1979 to "respond effectively to families, former and current group members, helping professionals, and scholars"
• Cult on Campus. Concentrating mainly on the International Churches of Christ
• Cult Information Centre. A British group founded by Ian Haworth who has "worked full-time as a specialist in cultism since 1979".
• FACTNet International (Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network) whose is to be "focused on mind control and unethical influence as was commonly found in destructive cults ...[as well as in] ... governments, corporations, social organizations, advertising/marketing, political organizations, the military and family groups."

List of anti-cult activists

The following people are anti-cult activists who are generally not officially tied to one of the main anti-cult organizations like the American Family Foundation. They criticize new religious movements that they consider to be cults. Many of these anti-cult activists are apostates and target only the group from which they have become disaffected. Some of them are exit counselors.

• Steven Hassan targets many groups and is an exit counselor. He is an ex-member of the Unification Church. He advances a theory of mind control called the BITE model.
• Anton Hein [3] (http://apologeticsindex.com) targets many groups from a Christian point of view. Technically he is not an anti-cult activist but a Christian countercult activist. His Apologetics Index also operates a weblog, the Religion News Blog (http://www.religionnewsblog.com).
• Rick Ross [4] (http://www.rickross.com) targets many groups, and is an exit counselor.
• Margaret Singer is a prominent advocate of the brainwashing theory.
• Dr. Walter Martin was the host of the Bible Answer Man radio broadcast and the president of the Christian Research Institute. He often gave Biblical and logical arguments against Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and other cultic and occultic movements.
• Hank Hanegraaff is the successor to Walter Martin on the radio and in CRI. He has continued the work of Martin; he also speaks out against Oneness Pentecostalism, so-called Word of Faith ministries, and other movements that are sometimes thought of as in the Christian church.

The counter-cult movement

The counter-cult movement (also referred as "discernment ministries", "heresy hunters" or "heresiologists" or generically as CCM) is composed of conservative Protestant Christian individuals and agencies who raise concerns about religious groups which they feel hold dangerous, non-traditional beliefs. These ministries are motivated by a concern for the spiritual welfare of people in the groups that they attack. They believe that any group which rejects one or more of the historical Protestant Christian beliefs is a danger to the welfare of its members, and to the Christian faith itself.

The counter-cult groups target mainly religious groups which regard themselves as Christian but hold one or more unorthodox beliefs, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Unification church, Christian Science, and Jehovah's Witnesses, although some within this movement also target non-Christian groups, such as Wicca, Neopagan groups, New Age groups, Buddhism, Hinduism and other Eastern religions. They also oppose certain cultural trends such as the Harry Potter books, vampire movies, Dungeons & Dragons, etc.

An umbrella group the Evangelical Ministries to New Religions (EMNR) was formed as a professional association for individuals and ministries addressing "cults" of Christianity, new religious movements, and world religions.

Scholars differentiate the sectarian movement as the counter-cult movement and the secular movement as the anti-cult movement.

See also the Christian countercult movement.

See also

• Cult Awareness Network
• New religious movements
• Witch hunt of members of purported cults

References

• 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
• Hadden, Jeffrey K., The Anti-Cult Movement Available online (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/lectures/anticult.html)
• Wilson, Brian R., Apostates and New Religious Movements, Oxford, England 1994

Bibliography

• Conway, Flo & Jim Siegelman, Snapping (1978), excerpt (http://www.rickross.com/reference/deprogramming/deprogramming7.html) ISBN 0964765004
• Hassan, Steven, Combatting Cult Mind Control ISBN 0892813113
• Hassan, Steven, Releasing The Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves ISBN 0967068800
• Introvigne, Massimo, Fighting the three Cs: Cults, Comics, and Communists – The Critic of Popular Culture as Origin of Contemporary Anti-Cultism, CESNUR 2003 conference, Vilnius, Lithuania, 2003[5] (http://www.cesnur.org/2003/vil2003_introvigne.htm)
• Introvigne, Massimo The Secular Anti-Cult and the Religious Counter-Cult Movement: Strange Bedfellows or Future Enemies?, in Eric Towler (Ed.), New Religions and the New Europe, Aarhus University Press, 1995, pp. 32-54.
• Langone, Michael D. Ph.D., (Ed.), Recovery from cults: help for victims of psychological and spiritual abuse (1993), a publication of the American Family Foundation, W.W. Norton & Company, ISBN 0-393-31321-2
• Singer, Margaret Ph.D., Cults in our Midst: The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace (excerpts (http://www.forum8.org/forum8/singer/singer_cults.htm)) ISBN 0787967416

External links

• Opposing views on cults but the links could be classified as belonging to anti-cult movement (http://dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Opposing_Views/Cults/)
• Canada based religious tolerance website, somewhat critical about the anti-cult movement (http://www.religioustolerance.org/acm.htm#menu)
• Somewhat apologetic article on cults from the same site (http://www.religioustolerance.org/cultmenu.htm)
• CESNUR, Italy based bilingual website that is accused by the anti-cult movement of being apologetic towards cults (http://www.cesnur.org/)
  • Article about anti-cult terrorism (http://www.cesnur.org/testi/anticult_terror.htm)
• USA based website "Foundation against Intolerance of Religious Minorities" critical of the anti-cult movement, connected with the guru Adi Dam (http://www.firmstand.org/index.html)
• Article about the various cult watch groups from "Info-cult" organization, funded by among others Quebec government's Ministry of Health and Social Services, Microsoft Word Document (http://www.math.mcgill.ca/triples/infocult/ControversyCSR.doc)
• Website of the Justice for Jeremiah campaign (http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com)
• Evangelical Ministries to New Religions (http://www.emnr.org/)

pl:Ruchy antykultowe