About Opentopia
Opentopia Directory Encyclopedia Tools

Anti-cult movement

Encyclopedia : A : AN : ANT : Anti-cult movement

The Anti-cult movement (ACM) opposes cults and new religious movements that anti-cultists see as harmful or dangerous for society and individuals. Not all opposition to (certain) cults or new religious movements is part of the ACM. A possible, but not universally accepted definition for the ACM, as used by the American sociologists David G. Bromley and Anson Shupe in 1981 is the amalgam of groups who embrace the brainwashing theory. Bromley, David G. and Anson Shupe Strange Gods: The Great American Cult Scare. Boston: Beacon Press, 1981 MaryMcCormick Maaga, Mary Hearing the voices of Jonestown, 1998 Syracuse University press, ISBN 0815605153

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 (Bromfield, Shupe, 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:

Contents

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 very 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.

Not only the background, also the main activities varied: some stressed information of the public regarding New Religious Movements, others, usually in close cooperation with relatives, concentrated on getting people out of cults, some were mainly interested in therapy and rehabilitation of former cult members and others focused on research - and there were also freeloaders who just wanted to make money from the issue.

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

Opposition to cults and new religious movements today goes beyond a group of concerned parents, and includes individuals, ex-members, scholars of various fields, and organizations who attempt to raise public consciousness about what they feel are serious emotional, spiritual and physical abuses by various new religious movements or other cultic groups.

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. Most of those scholars, though, did not side with the opposition against new religious movements but rather tended to defend them.

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.

Taxonomies

Religious and secular

Two main types of opposition to cults are differentiated:

Five types of cult watching groups by Eileen Barker

Cult watching groups (CWGs) disseminate information about purported 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:[link]

  1. cult-awareness groups (CAGs) focusing on the harm 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-orientated 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."[link] She 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 [link] and has admitted receiving funding from the Unification Church. [link]

The anti-cult movement: a taxonomy by Jeffrey Hadden

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

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.

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), which addresses the problem with an approach focusing on research and education, was also initiated by a father whose daughter had joined a high-control group.

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.

Former members

A small number of former members have taken an active stance in opposition to their former religion. They 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 [link] 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:

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. 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, 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.

A second group of organizations which originated within the context of established religion is working in more general fields of cult-awareness, especially in Europe. Their leaders are liberal and conservative theologians, and they are often social ministries affiliated to big churches. Among them are

Some independents like the international Dialog Center, and Anton Hein's Apologetics Index [link] in Amsterdam are Evangelical Christians.

The members of this second group are less concerned with doctrine and focus more on practices and methods, mainly targeting groups who, in their view, limit the freedom and self-determinism of their members or exploit them. Special concerns are Scientology, Unification church, Jehovah's Witnesses, VPM, but also some Europe-based NMRs and some fundamentalist charismatic groups.

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.

Skeptics

Skeptics are often concerned about what they consider false miracles performed or endorsed by the leadership of the group. They often criticize belief systems which they believe to be idiosyncratic, bizarre or irrational. See also Allegations against cults made by skeptics. Samples are the [Sceptics Dictionary], [Holysmoke], [Martin Poulter].

Media

Journalists who have published major articles regarding NRMs are, e.g., Joseph Mallia in Boston Herald (1998), Gustav Neighbour in Washington Post 1993, Richard Behar in Time (magazine) (1991), Charles Krauser in Washington Post 1978.

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." James R. Lewis writes in his book Cults in America that the tendency of the media to focus on negative events is a general trait of the media and also applies for other subjects treated by them.

Larry R. Moffitt, Unification Church member and Vice President of the Unification Church owned 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."

According to the Encyclopedia of Social Work (19th edition), the news media play an influential role in the general public's perception of cults. As reported in several studies, the media have depicted cults as problematic, controversial, and threatening from the beginning, tending to favor sensationalistic stories over balanced public debates (Beckford, 1985; Richardson, Best, & Bromley, 1991; Victor, 1993). It furthers the analysis that media reports on cults rely heavily on police officials and cult "experts" who portray cult activity as dangerous and destructive, and when divergent views are presented, they are often overshadowed by horrific stories of ritualistic torture, sexual abuse, mind control, etc. Furthermore, unfounded allegations, when proved untrue, receive little or no media attention.

See also Media bias in religion.

Cult watchers

Other opponents include Rick Ross, 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.

Controversies

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 Joseph 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

Brainwashing and mind control

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.

See Brainwashing controversies.

Deprogramming and 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.

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.

NRMs and critics

Advocates who regard certain fringe religious organizations, new religious movements or (controversially) "cults" as spurious and condemn their methods, also call them "hate groups". For example, the prominent Dutch Christian counter cult activist Anton Hein considers Scientology a hate group because that religious movement has, in his opinion, a long, documented history of hate and harassment activities[link], which—along with lying and deception—are condoned and encouraged in Scientology's own 'scriptures.' (See, for example, Scientology's Fair Game [link] policy.)

In turn, a number of new religious movements have used the term "hate group" to label certain former members of these groups. Disaffected former members of these organizations have worked to expose what they believe is the "truth" about the groups in question, though the methods used by some of these former members have been known to be polemic, hostile and verbally abusive. Alleged cults and new religions have seized upon the hostile acts of their former members and cited them as examples of persecution and bigotry by these former members. Supporters of these groups have waged campaigns of their own to label former members as hate groups, 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" [link] about 1/3 of whom are former members.

CESNUR’s president Massimo Introvigne, writes in his article "So many evil things: Anti-cult terrorism via the Internet"[link], 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. Somewhat in concurrence with Introvigne, 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. [link]

Elan Vital, an NRM and an organization that supports the work of Prem Rawat, accuse its vocal critics that call themselves "Ex-Premies", to harbor the hatred and ill-will typical of a hate group, such as hate speech and harassment. The Ex-Premies reject these accusations asserting that the evidence for these allegations is uncorroborated, and assert that they are performing a public service by providing information not disclosed by Elan Vital. See Criticism of Prem Rawat. Many former members of such Indian gurus as Prem Rawat assert that the typical guru chela dynamic that such gurus invariably surround themselves with is inherently prone to foster extreme abuses of authority.

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.

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[link].

Further information

See also

Bibliography

By ACM protagonists or ACM organizations
About the ACM

External links

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" [link], 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. [link]
  • Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin: Dear Colleagues: Integrity and Suspicion in NRM Research, 2001 [link]
  • Barker, Eileen: Watching for Violence: A Comparative Analysis of the Roles of Five Types of Cult-Watching Groups, 2001 [link]
  • 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 [link]
  • Hadden, Jeffrey K., The Brainwashing Controversy [link]
  • 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), [link]
  • Kropveld, Michael: An Example for Controversy: Creating a Model for Reconciliation, [link]
  • Langone, Michael: Cults, Psychological Manipulation, and Society: International Perspectives - An Overview [link]
  • Langone, Michael: Secular and Religious Critiques of Cults: Complementary Visions, Not Irresolvable Conflicts, Cultic Studies Journal, 1995, Volume 12, Number 2 [link]
  • Langone, Michael, On Dialogue Between the Two Tribes of Cultic Researchers Cultic Studies Newsletter Vol. 2, No. 1, 1983, pp. 11-15 [link]
  • Langone, Michael: Academic Disputes and Dialogue Collection: Preface, 2005, [link]
  • 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, [link]
  • 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 0802081886
  • Zablocki, Benjamin, Methodological Fallacies in Anthony's Critique of Exit Cost Analysis [link]

[Edit]   Cult

Opposition to cults and NRMs | Christian countercult movement | Cult apologists | Cult debate | Political cult

Charismatic authority | Mind control | Brainwashing | Exit counseling | Deprogramming | Post-cult trauma

Religious intolerance | Apostasy | Witch hunt | Bigotry

Cult of personality | Cult checklists | List of groups referred to as cults | Cult suicide

 

From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.

Search Titles
0123456789
ABCDEFGHIJ
KLMNOPQRST
UVWXYZ?

E-mail this article to:

Personal Message: