Anti-Cult Movement

Learn more about Anti-Cult Movement

Jump to: navigation, search

The anti-cult movement, sometimes abbreviated as "ACM", opposes cults and new religious movements that anti-cultists see as harmful or dangerous for society and individuals. The American sociologists David G. Bromley and Anson Shupe defined the ACM in 1981 as the amalgam of groups who embrace the brainwashing theory.<ref>Bromley, David G. and Anson Shupe Strange Gods: The Great American Cult Scare. Boston: Beacon Press, 1981 </ref><ref> MaryMcCormick Maaga, Mary Hearing the voices of Jonestown, 1998 Syracuse University press, ISBN 0-8156-0515-3 </ref>

The term is often used in literature by scholars of NRMs, who imply that these various groups and individuals are one movement, closely linked, with the same or very similar agenda and objectives (Bromley, Shupe, Massimo Introvigne). On the other hand, people thus labeled point out that the various movements lumped together in this term are too diverse to justify such a label and that the existence of a uniform movement against cults has never been verified by a sociological study on these groups. (Kropveld, 2003, Langone 2005)

Depending on their background and goals, such individuals and groups are active in various fields:

  • Some mainly provide information on cults, cultic groups or non-orthodox religious movements regarding their practices and beliefs through websites and publications
  • Some concentrate on members of cultic groups which they seek to extricate, either by deprogramming techniques (now obsolete)[citation needed], exit counseling or by missionary activities and on counseling and rehabilitation of former members
  • Some focus on sociological, psychological or theological research on new religious movements or cultic groups.

Opposition to (certain) cults or new religious movements by their critical former members is generally not part of the ACM, though they may overlap. The ACM is to be distuingished from the concerns and opposition by the Christian countercult movement that unlike the ACM mainly concerns itself with theological differences.<ref>Cult Group Controversies: Conceptualizing "Anti-Cult" and "Counter-Cult" article on the website of the University of Virginia[1]
"The counter-cult movement is the older group. It began long before the eruption of the 1970s cult controversy. They initially challenged nineteenth century sectarian movements such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, and other groups deemed heretical in nature. The counter-cultists focus on doctrinal differences between NRMs and established religions and, therefore, their opposition can be classified as theological."</ref><ref>Cowan Douglas E."Reflections on Louisville: The Christian Countercult in conversation" paper presented at a CESNUR conference June 20-23, 2002 available online
”If the secular anticult proceeds according to different versions of the brainwashing or thought control hypothesis, takes as its point of departure allegations of physical and mental abuse, and attacks a number of non-traditional religious groups on the basis of alleged civil liberties violations, the Christian countercult regards the range of choices available in an open religious economy as unacceptable because the very presence of non-traditional religious groups threatens the worldview inhabited by conservative Christians and challenges that worldview’s various claims to an ultimate authority and a unique veracity."</ref>

The people labeled as beloning to the ACM point out that the various movements lumped together in this term are too diverse to justify such a label and that the existence of a uniform movement against cults has never been verified by a sociological study on these groups. (Kropveld, 2003, Langone 2005)

Contents

[edit] History

Already in the first half of the 20th century some conservative Christian scholars, most of them Protestants, wrote in apologetical style defending Christian mainstream theology against the teachings of fringe groups. This activity continues until today by more or less mainstream churches and groups and on various levels of theological expertise and is summed up as Christian countercult movement. Most of its proponents keep a distance from secular opposition to new religious movements.

The modern era of opposition to cults and new religious movements started in the United States. In the 1960s and early 1970s, middle-class youths 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 became worried about what they considered bizarre belief systems and the behavior of their children and started to organize themselves in grass root movements some of which merged into regional or national organizations. One of the first such organized groups in the USA was FREECOG founded in 1971 by parents whose children were involved in the Children of God group.

In its early days, some such groups lobbied for conservatorship laws to get hold of cult members and forcibly "treat" them, and tried (and failed) to legalize this practice further by lobbying for deprogramming laws.

The opposition to cults soon consisted not only of concerned parents but of a very diverse group of people with very different views and different backgrounds. Protagonists of the seventies and eighties included psychiatrists John Gordon Clark and Louis Jolyon West, psychologists Margaret Singer and Michael Langone, congressman Leo J. Ryan, deprogrammer Ted Patrick, and lawyers Kay Barney and Herbert Rosedale as well as former members like Steven Hassan.

Opposition to NRMs in the general public grew after the mass suicide of the members of the Peoples Temple at Jonestown in 1978.

The cult controversies in the 1960s and 1970s also resulted in growing interest in scholarly research on alternative religions and the creation of academic organizations for their study.

On the scholarly level, the controversy divided scholars into two opposing camps, which Langone describes as "religion coalition", defending the right of (new) religions and religious groups on their beliefs and practices and consisting mainly of scholars of religion vs. the "individual rights coalition" defending the rights of individuals against abuse by religious or non-religious groups and individuals and consisting of mainly of psychologists and psychiatrists. Sociologists can be found in both camps. Each camp has in the last twenty years issued not only scientific works but also polemics regarding the other camp and some proponents still regard the other camp as non-scientific. In recent years, though, there were scholars in each camp seeking some understanding with the opposing position.

[edit] Taxonomies

[edit] Religious and secular

Two main types of opposition to cults are differentiated:

  • Religious opposition is related to theological issues. Such individuals and groups are collectively called the Christian countercult movement
  • Secular opposition is generally more concerned about emotional, social, financial, and economic consequences of cultic involvement, where cult can refer to a religious or a secular group. For this type of opposition against cults which covers a wide variation of backgrounds and motives, Bromley and Hadden coined in the 1980s the designation Anti-cult movement (ACM). Secular critics of cults are aware of the diversity of groups lumped under the "cult" label and are not concerned with all of those groups, but differentiate between harmful and harmless "cults", using criteria like communal totalism, Authoritarianism, charismatic leadership, manipulative and heavy-handed indoctrination, deceptive proselytization, violence and child abuse, sexual exploitation, emotional intensity in group life, and alleged use of mind control. Some specific groups are criticized for alleged tax privileges, public solicitation, faith healing and rejection of modern medicine, mental health jeopardy to participants, and corporal punishment.

[edit] Five types of cult watching groups by Eileen Barker

Cult watching groups (CWGs) disseminate information about "cults" with the intent of changing public and government perception of them and changing public policy regarding the NRMs. This can drastically affect the mindsets of NRM members and of society as a whole, as well as the actions the groups, the public and the government take, including potential acts of violence.

Sociologist Eileen Barker has identified five types of CWG:[2]

  1. cult-awareness groups (CAGs) focusing on the harm supposedly done by "destructive cults", e.g. International Cultic Studies Association, Dialog Center, Rick Ross, Freedom of Mind, Operation Clambake
  2. counter-cult groups (CCGs) focusing on the (heretical) teaching of non-mainstream groups, e.g. Reachout Trust, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, J. P. Moreland Edmond C. Gruss
  3. research-oriented groups (ROGs) focusing on beliefs, practices and comparisons, e.g. Eileen Barker, Philip Zimbardo, Benjamin Beith-Hallahami, Benjamin Zablocki
  4. human-rights groups (HRGs) focusing on the human rights of religious minorities
  5. cult-defender groups (CDGs) focusing on defending cults and exposing CAGs, e.g. J. Gordon Melton for Aum Shinrikyo and the Scientology-funded Parishioners.org

Barker is an active participant on the subject of cult watching groups; her colleague Jeffrey Hadden wrote in a 1989 memo that "... Eileen has taken a very significant step in neutralizing anti-cult movements in the UK."[3]

Controversy: Barker is regarded by many of her critics as a "cult apologist", as she has been listed by the Scientology-run "new Cult Awareness Network" as a professional referral [4]. An internet newsgroup entry calls her objectivity into question, asserting that she received funding from the Unification Church. [5]

[edit] The anti-cult movement: a taxonomy by Jeffrey Hadden

Jeffrey K. Hadden sees four distinct classes in the organizational opposition to cults

  1. Religiously grounded opposition
    • Opposition usually defined in theological terms
    • Cults viewed as engaging in heresy
    • Mission is to expose the heresy and correct beliefs of those who have strayed from truth
    • Deception rather than possession is the likely metaphor
    • Opposition serves two important functions:
      • protects members (especially youth) from heresy
      • increases solidarity among the faithful
  2. Secular opposition
    • Individual autonomy is professed to be the manifest goal. This is achieved by getting people out of religious groups.
    • The struggle is about control, not about theology.
    • Organized around families who have or have had children involved in a "cult."
    • Disabling or destruction of NRMs organizationally is latent goal.
  3. Apostates
    • apostasy = the renunciation of a religious faith
    • apostate = one who engages in active opposition to their former faith
    • anti-cult movement -- has actively encouraged former members to interpret their experience in a "cult" as one of being egregiously wronged and encourages participation in organized anti-cult activities.
  4. Entrepreneurial opposition
    • Individuals who take up a cause for personal gain.
    • Alliance or coalition to promote their agenda is ad hoc.
    • Broadcasters and journalists leading examples.
    • A few 'entrepreneurs' have made careers by creating organized opposition.

Note: Hadden's attitude towards NRMs and cult critics has been questioned as a too one-sided view in the scholarly field (Robbins and Zablocki 2001, Beit-Hallahmi 2001, Kent and Krebs 1998].

[edit] Cult watching groups and individuals, and other opposition to cults

Most opponents to cults differentiate between "cults" and "legitimate religious groups". The distinction is not by belief but by actions of a group. Cults are defined as groups which exploit and abuse their members; are often centered around an unreliable charismatic leader; and may use deceitful ways of recruiting and retaining members.

Most opponents of cults share the belief that the public should be warned about the actions of such groups and that current members should be as well fully informed on the negative sides of their group so that they can make an informed choice about staying or leaving.

[edit] Family members of adherents

The beginning of the opposition to cults and new religious movements started with family members of adherents who had problems with the sudden changes in character, lifestyle and future plans of their young adult children who had joined NRMs. Most of them are found in cult-awareness groups. Ted Patrick, widely known as "the Father of deprogramming", is an example of this group. Also the former Cult Awareness Network (old CAN) grew out of a grassroots movement by parents of cult members. The American Family Foundation (today International Cultic Studies Association) was also initiated by a father whose daughter had joined a high-control group.

[edit] Psychologists and psychiatrists

Already in the seventies there were some psychiatrists and psychologists who accused cults of harming some of their members, sometimes based on observations on therapy, sometimes related with research regarding brainwashing or mind control: Examples are John Gordon Clark, Louis Jolyon West, Robert Cialdini or Margaret Singer.

[edit] Former members

For details, see Apostasy in alleged cults and new religions movements

Some former members have taken an active stance in opposition to their former religion. Some of those opponents are affiliated with the ACM. Some have even have founded cult watching groups often with an active presence on the internet, made their experiences public in books and on the internet, and work as expert witnesses or as exit counselors. Most of them are found in cult-awareness groups, e.g., Steven Hassan, Arnie Lerma, Robert Vaughn Young, Lawrence Wollersheim, Jan Groenveld (deceased), heading the Cult Awareness & Information Centre, and Roger Gonnet [6] but some of them also in the counter-cult movement, e.g. Edmond C. Gruss and J. P. Moreland.

Cult-watching groups often use testimonies of former members. The validity and reliability of these testimonies is the source of intense controversy amongst scholars:

  • Anson Shupe, David G. Bromley and Joseph Ventimiglia coined the term atrocity tales in 1979,<ref>Bromley, David G., Shupe, Anson D., Ventimiglia, G.C.: "Atrocity Tales, the Unification Church, and the Social Construction of Evil", Journal of Communication, Summer 1979, p. 42-53.</ref> which was later taken up by and Bryan R. Wilson in relation to former members narratives. Bromley and Shupe defined it as the symbolic presentation of action or events (real or imaginary) in such a context that they are made flagrantly to violate the (presumably) shared premises upon which a given set of social relationships should be conducted. The recounting of such tales is intended as a means of reaffirming normative boundaries. By sharing the reporter's disapproval or horror, an audience reasserts normative prescription and clearly locates the violator beyond the limits of public morality.<ref>Duhaime, Jean (Université de Montréal) Les Témoigagnes de Convertis et d'ex-Adeptes (English: The testimonies of converts and former followers, article that appeared in the otherwise English language 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</ref><ref>Shupe, A.D. and D.G. Bromley 1981 Apostates and Atrocity Stories: Some parameters in the Dynamics of Deprogramming In: B.R. Wilson (ed.) The Social Impact of New Religious Movements Barrytown NY Rose of Sharon Press 179-215</ref>Lonnie Kliever asserts that former members present a distorted view of the new religions and cannot be regarded as reliable informants by responsible journalists, scholars, or jurists. Massimo Introvigne argues that the majority of apostates hold no strong feelings concerning his past experiences, while apostates that dramatically reverse their loyalties and become "professional enemies" of their former group are a vociferous minority. The term "atrocity story" is controversial as it relates to the opposing views amongst scholars about the credibility of the accounts of former members.
  • Phillip Charles Lucas came to the conclusion that former members are as reliable as those who remain in the fold. Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, a professor of psychology at the University of Haifa argues that in the cases of cult catastrophes such as People's Temple, or Heaven's Gate allegations by hostile outsiders and detractors have been closer to reality than other accounts, and that in that context statements by ex-members turned out to be more accurate than those of offered by apologists and NRM researchers. Benjamin Zablocki conducted an empirical study to assess whether leavers are as reliable as stayers and confirmed the conclusions of Lucas.

[edit] Established religion

Within established religion, two basic reasons for opposition to cults and new religious movement can be discerned: one is mainly based on theological differences, the other is based on defending human self-determinism and targets mainly groups (religious and non-religious) with alleged cultic behavior according to the definition of the secular opposition to cults.

The group focusing on theological differences has a very long tradition in Christian apologetics that is generally not considered part of the ACM. Since the 1970s, "countercult apologetics" has been in use, out of which the term Christian countercult movement developed, which actually does not designate a movement but a conglomerate of individuals and groups of very different background and scholarly level. Other designations are countercult ministries, discernment ministries (mainly used by such groups themselves) or "heresy hunters" (mainly used by their opponents).

Countercult ministries are mainly conservative Christians, the majority of them Protestant, but it includes also Catholics and Orthodox. Their concern are religious groups which they feel hold dangerous, non-traditional beliefs, especially regarding the central Christian doctrines (which they define according to conservative views in their respective denomination). 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 Christian beliefs is a danger to the welfare of its members. Such ministries are: Reachout Trust, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, Probe Ministries, Watchman Fellowship, or Walter Martin.

Their activities and orientation vary: some are missionary and apologetically oriented, directed at current members of divergent groups, some are therapeutically oriented, directed mainly at former members of divergent groups, and others educally oriented, directed at members of their own denomination or at the general public. Countercult ministries concern themselves 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 also target newer and older non-Christian groups, such as Wicca, Neopagan groups, New Age groups, Buddhism, Hinduism and other Eastern religions.

An American 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.

[edit] Countries and international entities

The secular anti-cult movement is not an United States singularity, although a number of sizable and expanding cults originated there. Some European countries, such as France, have introduced legislation or taken other measures against cult abuses. See Cults and governments.

[edit] Cult watchers

Other opponents include Rick Ross, Andreas Heldal-Lund, Hank Hanegraff, and Tilman Hausherr, as well as anti-cult organizations such as Infosekta in Switzerland, UNADFI (National Association for the Defense of Families and Individuals Victims of Cults) in France, and the AGPF (Action for Mental and Psychological Freedom) in Germany.

[edit] Controversies

[edit] Polarized views among scholars

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.

All academics agree that some groups have been problematic and sometimes very problematic but they disagree to what extent new religious movements in general are harmful.

Scholars are found among all five groups of cult watchers, most of them are sociologists, psychologists and in the field of science of religion. Some like John Gordon Clark, Margaret Singer, Stephen A. Kent and David C. Lane are in the cult awareness field, others like J. P. Moreland or Edmond C. Gruss in the counter cult field, Eileen Barker, Benjamin Beith-Hallahmi, Benjamin Zablocki, Michael Langone and Philip Zimbardo are research oriented. Jeffrey Hadden and Douglas E. Cowan are focused on human rights of religious groups while J. Gordon Melton researches movements like Scientology and the Unification church and published encyclopedias of new religious movements. Other scholars studying and researching new and often defending religious movements include Irving Hexham, James R. Lewis, Anson Shupe and David G. Bromley.

There are many controversial subjects among scholars regarding new religious movements:

[edit] Brainwashing and mind control

For details, see Brainwashing controversy in new religious movements and cults

A very controversial subject between sympathizers and critics of new religious movements is the subject of brainwashing or mind control which is treated in detail in these articles.

The controversy between sympathizers and critics of new religious movements starts with discrepancies regarding definition and concept, extends to the possibility or probability of its application by cultic groups and to the state of acceptance by various scholarly communities.

[edit] Deprogramming and exit counseling

For details, see Deprogramming, Exit counseling

Some members of the secular cult opposition have argued that if a person has been deprived of their free will by brainwashing, treatment to restore their free will should be initiated even if it is initially against their will.

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 frequently been adjudged illegal. Deprogramming has also been criticized by human rights organizations including the ACLU and Human Rights Watch. While only a small fraction of the anti-cult movement has been involved in deprogramming, several deprogrammers (including its pioneer Ted Patrick) have served prison terms for the practice, while others have been acquitted in court.

Deprogramming has apparently been abandoned by the anti-cult movement in the USA, in favor of the voluntary practice of exit counseling. However, this is still a subject of controversy between sympathizers and critics of new religious movements, regarding its basic assumptions and its relation to freedom of religion.

[edit] The anti-cult movement and cult apologists

Some sociologists and scholars of religion use the term anti-cult movement as expression comprising the whole secular opposition against cults or anti-cult activist to classify anyone opposing cults for secular reasons. The term was coined by David Bromley and Anton Shupe in the 1980s and has since mainly been used by people criticizing the opposition against cults. Often the expression anti-cultist is used as well, which makes it sound like a cult itself.

The indiscriminate use of this expression for any and all opposition to cults makes a very varied collective of independent individuals and groups look like an organized group.

On the other hand, the people criticizing the opposition against cults or sympathizing with cults are called cult apologists in a similarly indiscriminate manner.

Scholarly cooperation between the two groups seems to be virtually non-existent.

The allegations the two groups fling against each other have many parallels. Sometimes they are disputed by the other side and in other cases they are defended as the only right way to address the matter.

  • Anti-cultists do not trust information stemming from the leadership of these groups and believe that the only reliable information comes from disaffected former members.
  • Cult apologists buy only information from the leadership of those groups and deny that any valid information comes from disaffected former members.
  • The anti-cult movement generalized inappropriately, lumping together relatively harmless groups with dangerous groups, such as the Peoples Temple;
  • Cult apologists generalize inappropriately, lumping together dangerous groups with relatively harmless groups.
  • Anti-cultist create a moral panic and witch hunt through exaggeration of the harm and dangers of new religious movements;
  • Cult apologists play down any real harm and dangers of new religious movements
  • The anti-cult movement endorses pseudoscientific theories regarding brainwashing and mind control;
  • Cult apologists deny evidence regarding mind control.
  • The anti-cult movement polarize the debate over new religious movements due to its focus on the negative aspects of these groups. In the book "Why Waco?: Cults and the Battle for Religious Freedom in America" James Tabor and Eugene Gallagher assert that the anti-cult movement exacerbated the fanatical reaction of destructive cults by encouraging a cult phobia among the public and authorities, that helped to precipitate mass tragedies like Jonestown, Waco, and Heaven's Gate.
  • Cult apologists turn a blind eye to real abuses by cults and make thus tragedies like Jonestown, Waco, or Heaven's gate possible.
  • The anti-cult movement is the main force behind purported discriminative measures promulgated against minority groups in France, Germany, and China.
  • Cult apologists work together with cults to attack countries who take measures to prevent abuses and exploitation by groups using the cover of religion.
  • The anti-cult movement has a vested interest in maintaining the conflict because they earn money only because of it.
  • Cult apologists have a vested interest in defending cults because they are, at least in part, funded by them.

[edit] Responses of targeted groups and scholars

Supporters of Scientology have waged a campaign of their own to label former anti-cult activists as "anti-religious" even to the point where they publish literature and Web sites dedicated to attacking these disaffected persons. An example is a page of 60 "Anti-Religious Extremists" [7]

The Foundation against Intolerance of Religious Minorities, associated with the Adidam NRM, sees the use of terms "cult" and "cult leader" to suggest that these are to be detested, avoided at all costs and see this as the exercise of prejudice and discrimination against them in the same manner as "nigger" and "commie" were used in the past to denigrate blacks and Communists.<ref>The Foundation Against Intolerance of Minority Religions</ref>

CESNUR’s president Massimo Introvigne, writes in his article "So many evil things: Anti-cult terrorism via the Internet"[8], that fringe and extreme anti-cult activism resort to tactics that may create a background favorable to extreme manifestations of discrimination and hate against individuals that belong to new religious movements. Critics of CESNUR, however, call Introvigne a cult apologist who defends harmful religious groups and cults. Professor Eileen Barker asserts in an interview that the controversy surrounding certain new religious movements can turn violent by a process called deviancy amplification spiral.<ref>Interview with Eileen Barker , Introducing New Religious Movements Available online (Retrieved August 2006)</ref> [citation needed]

In a paper by Anson Shupe and Susan Darnell presented at the 2000 meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, they affirm that although the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA, formerly known as AFF or American Family Foundation) has presented "slanted, stereotypical images and language that has inflamed persons to perform extreme actions", the extent to which the ICSA and other anti-cultist organizations are hate groups as defined by law or racial/ethnic criteria in sociology, is open for debate. See also Verbal violence in hate groups.

[edit] Further information

[edit] See also

[edit] Bibliography

By ACM protagonists or ACM organizations
About the ACM
  • Anthony, D. Pseudoscience and Minority Religions: An Evaluation of the Brainwashing Theories of Jean-Marie Abgrall. Social Justice Research, Kluwer Academic Publishers, December 1999, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 421-456(36)
  • Bromley, David G. & Anson Shupe 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
  • 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[9]
  • 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.
  • Thomas Robbins and Benjamin Zablocki, Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for objectivity in a controversial field, 2001, ISBN 0-8020-8188-6
  • AD Shupe Jr, DG Bromley, DL Olive, The Anti-Cult Movement in America: A Bibliography and Historical Survey, New York: Garland 1984.

[edit] External links

[edit] References

<references />

  • Amitrani, Alberto and di Marzio, Raffaella : "Mind Control" in New Religious Movements and the American Psychological Association, Cultic Studies Journal Vol 17, 2000.
  • Amitrani, Alberto and di Marzio, Raffaella : "Blind or just don't want to see" [10], C&S: Vol. 1, No. 1, 2001
  • 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.
  • Anthony, Dick. 1990. "Religious Movements and 'Brainwashing' Litigation" in Dick Anthony and Thomas Robbins, In Gods We Trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. [11]
  • Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin: Dear Colleagues: Integrity and Suspicion in NRM Research, 2001 [12]
  • Barker, Eileen: Watching for Violence: A Comparative Analysis of the Roles of Five Types of Cult-Watching Groups, 2001 [13]
  • Beckford, James A., Cult Controversies: The Societal Response to New Religious Movements, London, Tavistock, 1985, p. 235
  • Bromley, David G. & Anson Shupe, 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 [14]
  • Hadden, Jeffrey K., The Brainwashing Controversy [15]
  • Hadden, Jeffrey K, "A confidential memorandum, 20 December 1989 [A Confidential Memorandum]
  • Introvigne, Massimo, “Liar, Liar”: Brainwashing, CESNUR and APA (Rebuttal to DIMPAC report)
  • Kent, Stephen A. and Theresa Krebs, When Scholars Know Sin, Skeptic Magazine (Vol. 6, No. 3, 1998), [16]
  • Kropveld, Michael: An Example for Controversy: Creating a Model for Reconciliation, [17]
  • Langone, Michael: Cults, Psychological Manipulation, and Society: International Perspectives - An Overview [18]
  • Langone, Michael: Secular and Religious Critiques of Cults: Complementary Visions, Not Irresolvable Conflicts, Cultic Studies Journal, 1995, Volume 12, Number 2 [19]
  • Langone, Michael, On Dialogue Between the Two Tribes of Cultic Researchers Cultic Studies Newsletter Vol. 2, No. 1, 1983, pp. 11-15 [20]
  • Langone, Michael: Academic Disputes and Dialogue Collection: Preface, 2005, [21]
  • Mallia, Joseph, Inside the Church of Scientology: Church, Enemies Wage War on Internet Battlefield. Copyright Laws Used to Silence Online Foes, Boston Herald, March 4, 1998, [22]
  • 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
  • Robins, Susan P., Encyclopedia of Social Work, 19th Edition, National Association of Social Workers. Washington, DC. 1997 Update
  • Robbins, Thomas. (2000). “Quo Vadis” the Scientific Study of New Religious Movements? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39(4), 515-523.
  • Thomas 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
  • Rowe, L., & Cavender, G. (1991). Caldrons bubble, Satan's trouble, but witches are okay: Media constructions of Satanism and witchcraft.
  • Victor, J. S. (1993). Satanic panic: The creation of a contemporary legend. Chicago: Open Court Publishing. In J. T. Richardson, J. Best, & D. G. Bromley (Eds.), The satanism scare (pp. 263-275). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
  • Wilson, Brian R., Apostates and New Religious Movements, Oxford, England 1994
  • Robbins, Thomas and Zablocki, Benjamin, Misunderstanding Cults: Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field , ISBN 0-8020-8188-6
  • Zablocki, Benjamin, Methodological Fallacies in Anthony's Critique of Exit Cost Analysis [23]
lt:Antikultinis judėjimas

nl:Oppositie tegen nieuwe religieuze bewegingen en sekten pl:Ruchy antykultowe

Anti-Cult Movement

Views
Personal tools
what is world wizzy?
  • World Wizzy is a static snapshot taken of Wikipedia in early 2007. It cannot be edited and is online for historic & educational purposes only.