My name is Alex Colvin. I am an alumni of the University of Baltimore, a currently enrolled student at the University of Baltimore, and an employee of the University of Maryland System. I am also the parent of two teenage children who are prospective students in the University of Maryland System.
I joined the Unification Church in September of 1973 and thus have been a member of the church for almost twenty-six years. My wife, Linda, and two teenage children are also members of the Unification Church. I would like to make clear, however, that I am only speaking on behalf of myself. I am not speaking as a spokesman for the Unification Church, nor do I hold any official position presently within the Unification Church.
Furthermore, I am here not only because these proceedings potentially concern me, my family and my church. More fundamentally, I believe that this task force, if it aligns itself with the Anticult Movement -- which has been and is so strongly represented here -- represents a major threat to religious freedom, as well as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. I believe very strongly that religious freedom and freedom of conscience are not only fundamental but are the foundation for our other civil liberties. If the State seeks to control our freedom to choose our beliefs or our expression and practice of those beliefs, then they can easily infringe on civil liberties. It was this insight, expressed so well in Judge James Noonan's book, The Lustre of Our Country: The American Experience of Religious Freedom, which motivated James Madison in authoring the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment. In my opinion, the ideas that these rights come from God, that they are inalienable and that governments are charged with the responsibility to ensure that these rights are protected are fundamental points of American political thought and the theory of popular sovereignty.
Concern for Religious Freedom
I received my BA from UB in 1983. In 1991, I received an MA in legal studies. One of the areas in which I concentrated was First Amendment Constitutional law. I must admit that I am surprised that in preparing for this task force the Chairman did not request an advisory from the Attorney General on the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment as well as freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and the Constitutional prohibition of religious tests for public office. I am especially surprised since such an opinion was requested by Charlie Fey, Vice President for Student Affairs at UMBC in his response to the questionnaire sent out by the task force.
To quote Mr. Fey's answer to question #4.
I am unsure what you mean by this question. We first need to know the definition of "destructive cults" and how to effectively and legally differentiate them from other clubs and organizations that have religious bases, and what is meant by "inappropriate access" versus appropriate access to students (e.g. cult members as resident assistants, etc.) I would want the Attorney General's office to review this issue before it is determined whether we can or should restrict access and how we would do that. I believe that this kind of restriction approaches the threshold of first amendment protections of association and separation of church and state. How would we legally restrict a person from applying to be an RA based on associations with legal groups (if the cults are legal) and then once they are hired, how would we restrict them from "access to students" or fire them if we discover that they are cult members? We could take action, in my view, only if they are violating our rules in an active way, but not merely for membership in a particular organization, however repugnant that organization might be. This is a very interesting question, and again, I would ask if the AG has provided any legal insight or guidance on this subject.
This request, submitted to the task force on December 19, 1998, seems to be fairly common sense. The sponsors of the resolution which empowered the task force resolutely refused to define what a "cult" is or to name any organization which they thought was a "cult." In fact, Senator Pinski, who was on the Senate committee that reviewed the resolution, not only refused to name any suspect group but assured me that the task force was not going to study any religious groups at all. He said that they were going to study "psycho-groups." When I asked him for an example of such a group he was unable or unwilling to name one. I did not know this at the time, but Senator Pinski made these statements to me knowing full well that this resolution originated from the complaint of a parent of a student at the University of Maryland who had joined a religious organization, the International Churches of Christ, and that substantial testimony at the committee hearing on which he sat was focused on religious groups. Senator Pinski is now a member of the task force to study cult activity.
As I sat through the task force session on May 25 in the Chancellor's Conference at the headquarters of the University of Maryland System, it quickly became apparent that the discussion was focused almost exclusively on religious organizations. In brief, the Supreme Court has on numerous occasions stated that the State may not prefer one religion over another or religion over non-religion, may not become entangled in the affairs of religious organizations, and may not pass laws or engage in actions which create a chilling effect on religion. The Court also stated relatively recently that, while the State may hold religious organizations and persons accountable for violations of laws which apply to the general population, it may not pass legislation which targets specific religious organizations.
The Unification Church is recognized as a religious organization by both the federal government and the State of Maryland. It has been investigated by numerous governmental agencies and found guilty of no wrong-doing. Furthermore, numerous court cases, including several in the Supreme Court, have affirmed the church's religious status and have found that the methods of recruitment and indoctrination employed by the Unification Church do not differ from those employed by other religions. The legal status of the Unification Church as a religion protected by the First Amendment is well established. As soon as a State body such as the task force names the Unification Church, or any other church as a "cult" and begins discussing it as such, they are in fact preferring one religion over another.
Mr. Mark Davis, Assistant Attorney General of MD, was present for the first part of the meeting to advise the task force on "Legal Issues and the Open Meetings Law." His advice and discussion were limited to the Open Meetings Law. Mr. Davis remained through the presentation by Ronald Loomis from the anti-cult organization, American Family Foundation. Mr. Loomis outlined his theories concerning cults using the Unification Church and the International Churches of Christ as examples. Mr. Loomis referred numerous times to the Unification Church as "moonies." I asked Mr. Loomis if he was aware that the scientific community, particularly the American Psychiatric Association and the American Sociological Association, had issued statements that the theory of "mind control' which he had propounded was not supported by credible research. I also expressed my indignation at having my church attacked and falsely maligned.
After this exchange, I spoke briefly with the Assistant Attorney General outside the room expressing my concerns as to religious freedom violations and asking if he could provide the committee with counsel on the parameters of the Constitutional issues involved. Mr. Davis told me that such an opinion would need to be requested by the Chair of the task force. Mr. Davis also told me that he agreed with my understanding of the Supreme Court's position concerning the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment, though I do not mean to infer by this that he was making any judgement as to whether or not Constitutional violations had already occurred.
Harassment
In addition to religious freedom, I think that there are serious harassment and possibly even hate crimes issues at stake in these hearings. The term "moonie" is a derogatory and inflammatory term. I have been told by a reporter that the AP style guide advises writers that it is a pejorative term and counsels reporters not to use it. The Unification Church has clearly stated that it considers the use of the term to be insulting, demeaning, and inflammatory. The name of the Church is Unification Church and the proper adjective for followers of Reverend Moon is Unificationists. In other words, calling a member of the Unification Church a "moonie" is similar to calling an African-American a "nigger." I think that if an African-American had to sit through a meeting in which he was repeatedly referred to as a "nigger," he would feel that he was being harassed and justly so. Let us remember that an employee in the Washington DC government recently lost his job simply for using the word "niggardly."
My understanding of issues concerning harassment is based on two sources. I have a certificate from the Maxwell School of Government of Syracuse University for attending a ten-month training seminar for Congressional Legislative and Administrative Assistants. Since the Congress had recently removed its immunity from such laws, we discussed these laws in detail. For two weeks, we met with a representative of a leading human relations consulting firm and explored the issue. I also was employed as a substitute teacher for two years by the Anne Arundel County School system. Before beginning employment , I had to go through a training session on sexual harassment.
When the task force broke for lunch, I informed Chairman Wood that I considered the use of the term "moonie" to be pejorative. While Mr. Wood may have been unaware that "moonie" is considered to be a pejorative term, I believe that Mr. Loomis knows clearly that it is and has been so informed on numerous occasions. I believe that he intentionally chose to use this term precisely because it is a hate term used to incite fear and negative associations.
Anti-Cult Movement Participation in and Influence on the Taskforce
I not only expressed my indignation to the Chair, but also to the task force member who had invited Mr. Loomis to testify. The name of this task force member is Franz Wilson. After I informed him that I was offended by the use of the term "moonie," Mr. Wilson responded that he didn't care what I had to say because he knew "that the Unification Church is a hateful and deceptive organization."
This conversation brought to the fore concerns that I have about the make-up of the task force. Given the nature of the serious issues involved, it would seem to be imperative that the Task Force would consist of rational, impartial participants. Mr. Wilson's comments revealed a deep seated prejudice and hostility toward new religious movements in general and the Unification Church in particular. This is particularly alarming because Mr. Wilson was the task force member responsible for choosing the people who were to testify before the committee. In his comments during the committee session, Mr. Wilson indicated that over an extended period of time, he has participated in numerous meetings of the Anticult Movement. It seems that he is deeply involved in this movement.
The Anti-Cult Movement
Since I have referred to the Anticult Movement several times, I would like to explain my understanding of this movement and the reasons why I feel that any official association between this movement and the State of Maryland would constitute a serous threat to Constitutionally protected rights.
The Anticult movement originated in the early 1970's in response to the growth of alternative religious groups in the late 1960's and early 70's. Several scholars who have studied the Anticult movement have written that the Anticult movement itself has all of the characteristics of an alternative ideological movement. In the book, America's Alternative Religions (edited by Timothy Miller, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Kansas, published by State University of New York Press, 1995), Dr. Miller includes a chapter on the "Evolution of Modern American Anticult Ideology: A Case Study in Frame Extension," written by Anson Shupe and David G. Bromley. Dr. Bromley is a Professor of Sociology at Virginia Commonwealth University, and Dr. Shupe is Professor of Sociology at Indiana University-Purdue University.
To quote their article:
The ACM is, despite all of its claims to being scientific and its denials of antireligious bias, a religiously oriented group operating in a dynamic religious economy. (America's Alternative Religions, p. 415)
In his Bibliographical Guide to Alternative Religious Movements, Dr. Miller defines the Anticult Movement as:
A name given to activists seeking to remove members from alternative religions they find objectionable and/or opposing the existence of certain alternative religions at all. The movements detractors accuse it of having "cult"-like features much like those of the movements it opposes. (America's Alternative Religions, p. 418)
The ideology of the Anticult movement is grounded in the theory of "mind-control" developed largely
by Dr. Margaret Singer. The concept of "mind-control" is an extension of the idea of brainwashing which
was popularized during the 1950's and 1960's in response to attempts at thought reform of American prisoners of
war by the Chinese during the Korean War. The term was first used in popular culture by the British journalist
Edward Hunter in his book Brainwashing in Red China. In 1962, the concept was further popularized in the
movie The Manchurian Candidate.
The theory of mind control proposes that through the use of psychological techniques and control of environment it is possible to deprive a person of their free will, to gain control over their decision-making process, to alter their personality, and to control their behavior. In early versions of this theory it was maintained that that this process was permanent and irreversible. The Anti-Cult Movement, proposing the illogical schemata that thousands of small organizations and movements have somehow simultaneously perfected these techniques of mind-control, modified his concept to some extent. They maintained that the effects are irreversible unless professionals - i.e. the Anticult Movement - intervene to reverse the process. The Anticult Movement went into the business of "deprogramming" members of new religious movements. They actively recruited family members of those who had converted to new religions, indoctrinated them in the Anticult ideology of mind control, and bilked these families of millions of dollars.
In some cases, parents were already upset that there adult child had converted to a new faith. In other cases, there were no problems or only minor problems in the family before aggressive intervention and solicitation by the Anticult movement. One example is that of my wife. My wife joined the Unification Church in Minnesota when she was 25 years old. Her sister also studied the teachings of the church but decided not to join. Yet their relationship was good and her sister, while not joining, still had a good relationship with the church. Her father and mother also came to several meetings at the church. Not only did they not object to her joining, they enjoyed the fellowship. Their relationship with their daughter was in no way impaired. Subsequently, my wife went to New York to work for the News World Newspaper. She continued to call and write her family and maintain a good relationship with them. Her family continued to attend programs of the local Unification Church, even in her absence, and enjoyed good relationship with the local Unification Church members. One day, she received a call from her dad saying that her mother was sick and needed an operation. She immediately made arrangements to go home to visit her mother.
In fact, the call from Linda's father was a deceptive ruse. Unbeknownst my wife, her parents had been approached by Anticult professionals and convinced by them that their daughter was "brainwashed." When my wife got home, her father deceptively told her that they were going to visit her brother in a house he had recently rented. In actuality, he was taking her to the house of a member of the Anticult movement. Once there, they invited her to come downstairs to see a player piano. As soon as she descended the stairs, the door was locked behind her and she was surrounded by deprogrammers. She was held prisoner in the basement against her will for four days. Not only was she subjected to intense and constant harassment for her beliefs, she was also deprived of her prescription medicine which she needed to take in order to prevent an epileptic attack. Only after ceasing to resist the deprogramming was she allowed to come upstairs. She was then taken to another house owned by an Anticult member where she was kept under constant observation by deprogrammers and not allowed any unsupervised contact with the outside world. She was encouraged by the deprogrammers to drink alcohol and have sex in order to ensure that the church's hold on her mind was broken. She declined to do so. The first chance that Linda had to use a telephone unobserved, she called the Unification Church and arranged for a car to come and take her to the airport. After returning to New York, she lived in constant fear for several years that she might be forcibly kidnapped and once again subjected to the traumatic ordeal that she had undergone.
Initially, the Anticult Movement was able to ply their trade unmolested. They had excellent public relations and found a media willing to publicize the fear of cults and brainwashing to the general public. They grossly overstated the number of new religious movements and the size of their membership. The tragedy of Jonestown increased the Cult scare. In spite of the fact that there are a wide variety of spiritual groups and religions in the United States from diverse backgrounds and employing a wide range of rites and practices, the Anticult movement insists that they all the same and they are all dangerous. In the late 1970's, the country experienced a period of Anticult hysteria and the ideas of "dangerous cults," "mind-control," and "brainwashing" became wide spread and deeply embedded in the minds of the general public.
Increasingly however, a broad range of religious groups and civil libertarians were alarmed at the criminal abuse of Anticultists and the increasingly wide range of groups, both religious and non-religious, that they were attacking. The National Council of Churches, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Joint Baptist Committee, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and numerous other groups came forward to denounce the Anticult Movement. Several deprogrammers went to prison on kidnapping and assault charges. The father of the Anticult movement, Ted Patrick, went to prison for slashing a girl's face in the course of a deprogramming.
As a result, the Anticult Movement tried new tactics. Based on theory of mind control, they sought to have state legislatures introduce bills declaring members of "cults" mentally incompetent, placed under conservatorships, and deprived of their civil rights so that they could be legally deprogrammed. This effort failed thanks to the combined efforts of civil liberty organizations, churches and social scientists who rejected the Anticultists creed as unscientific. Several such "anti-cult" bills were introduced in Maryland. Senator Ida Ruben has been a consistent sponsor of these bills. The resolution which empowered this task force is only the latest in a line of measures originating from the Anticult movement.
All such previous measures were defeated in committee because people had obtained sufficient notice in advance and came to testify against the measures. They were assisted by the frightening arrogance of the Anticultists themselves. I remember one instance in a House hearing in which Delegate Wendell Phillips, an Afro-American minister from Baltimore asked a self-proclaimed "anti-cult expert" how they were to know what religious groups were cults and what were not. Del. Phillips stated that in his opinion more than half of the black churches in Baltimore could possibly be accused of being "cults." The "anticult expert" pointed his finger at Del. Phillips and said in an authoritarian tone, "Don't worry about that. You pass the legislation and we'll tell you who the cults are." After he spoke, there was a chill in the room. The legislation was killed in committee.
This is relevant because it relates to and resembles the present situation. The American Family Foundation and related organizations are comprised of the many of the same individuals who were involved in or associated with the illegal activities of the Anticult movement in the past. In fact, the Cult Awareness Network, which preceded the American Family Foundation as the leading Anticult organization in America, went out of business because they lost a law suit in a deprogramming case and went into bankruptcy. Mr. Loomis was the president of CAN.
It is important to understand that Anticult organizations such as American Family Foundation need funding to support their activities. Increasingly, they are seeking to ally themselves with governments in order to receive State funding. Their approach is as follows. First they seek to engender an atmosphere of distrust and fear by claiming that there are thousands of dangerous cults with millions of members who are destroying individual's lives and families. In order to allay concerns about religious freedom they refuse to name the groups they are talking about and state that they are not talking about beliefs but only behavior, ignoring the fact that religious practice is as sacrosanct in American Law as is religious belief.
They then profess that they are the only people who are capable of recognizing "cult" behavior. An example of this was the statement at the task force hearing by Professor Sidney Gulick, a long-time associate of Anticult groups, that without training from experts, i.e. the Anticult Movement, University of Maryland System personnel are incapable of recognizing cults. Psychologists and sociologists not associated with the Anticult movement can not be trusted. They may be "apologists" for the cults. Therefore, the State of Maryland needs to hire Anticultists to train their personnel to recognize "cults." Mr. Loomis even had the astounding audacity to solicit business from the task force declaring that he would be happy to come and train personnel in Anticult ideology "for a fee."
One tactic that the Anticult Movement has adopted in its attempt to sweep its shady past under the rug is the use of "contracts" for "exit counseling." This tactic actually originated in the early 1980's as deprogramming came to be recognized as criminal activity. In the atmosphere of fear and distrust created by the Anticult movement and the threat of deprogramming, many converts to new religions became afraid to visit with their parents. Sometimes, "safe meetings" could be arranged with the help of local authorities. To insure parents that they had joined the new religion of their own free will, members of a religious group would be asked to meet for a period of time with "independent" counselors, to evaluate their choice. A contract would then be signed stating that the member was listening to the counselor of their own free will and would be free to leave at any time.
A friend of mine, who is currently a resident of Columbia, Maryland attended such a "safe meeting" with her mother and aunt in Atlanta, Georgia. She agreed to visit with her for a few weeks to assure them that she had freely made her decision and a contract was signed in the presence of the District Attorney of Atlanta. The DA informed her family that if any attempt to forcibly detain their daughter in order to change her beliefs were attempted they and any co-perpetrators would be prosecuted for kidnapping. Immediately after going with her parents, this young adult in her mid-twenties was kidnapped. She was taken to Bermuda in order to avoid the jurisdiction of US Courts. After a period of time she was secretly brought to a farm in Nebraska. She was held prisoner against her will for several months before she was finally able to escape. The deprogrammers charged $70,000 for their services. It has taken years to repair the breach of trust on the part of her parents.
Deprogramming still exists, though it is more common now in Japan and Latin America. Ron Loomis boasted of his international contacts and his status as a "cult expert" in Europe. He did not mention that the involvement of the Anticult movement in the current cult scares in Western Europe have come under scrutiny by the US State Department, the Helsinki Commission, and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on religious persecution and intolerance and that all of these organizations have criticized the formation of anticult and antisect commissions in France, Belgium, and Germany. Mr. Loomis also did not mention that in France and Belgium, which have published lists of "dangerous cults" these lists have included such groups as the YWCA, the Salvation Army, the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as numerous Evangelical, Pentecostal, and even Catholic organizations.
I believe that I heard Mr. Loomis boast of the fact that he had recently visited China, the country with one of the worst records for persecution of religious minorities in the world, as an advisor on "cults." In China, all religions other than the five state-sponsored "patriotic" religions are considered to be "dangerous cults." This includes Tibetan Buddhism under the Dalai Lama, the Catholic Church, Evangelical house churches, and numerous Muslim, Buddhist, and Taoist organizations. It is frightening to think that Mr. Loomis would boast of serving as an advisor to this system.
In fact, emboldened by the success of Anticult activities in Western Europe where they receive government funding, the Anticult Movement in the United States, whose flagship organization is the American Family Foundation is seeking to duplicate the process in an attempt to undermine religious liberty in the United States. As indicated by Mr. Loomis, the establishment of this Maryland taskforce is their proudest accomplishment to date. Earlier this year, a conference was held in Stamford, Connecticut to reenergize the Anticult movement under the name of CULT-INFO. The Maryland resolution was featured as an example for Anticultists throughout the country to emulate.
The Anticult movement is much more sophisticated today than it was ten or twenty years ago. I do not believe that they want to return to the days of kidnappings and forced conversions. I believe that what they want is to establish their ideology as the official policy of the University of Maryland system and to be hired as training consultants and "exit counselors" in order to implement that policy, recruit new members, and generate funding for their activities.
I do not object to the right of organizations such as the American Family Foundation to exist. I feel that they should be free to enjoy the same freedoms as other organizations. I do object to their attempts to subvert religious liberty by having the government adopt their ideology of fear, hatred, and intolerance as the official policy of the State.
Religious Critique of Anticult Ideology
The primary tenets and claims to authority of the Anticult Movement's ideology are not accepted by either the scientific community or the religious community. Within the religious community there are some individuals and organizations that oppose "cults." This religious opposition is generally differentiated from the Anticult movement as I have been discussing it. Scholars refer to it as the Countercult Movement. Countercult opposition to "cults" is generally based on their judgement that these groups are teaching false doctrine. While in some cases they may also be critical of aggressive proselytizing by alternative religious movements and they may adapt some of the terminology of the Anticult Movement, they, and the religious community in the United States as a whole, have rejected the theory of mind control on theological grounds. Judeo-Christian tradition maintains that man and woman, created in the image of God, are endowed with free will as an essential part of their nature. It is impossible to be deprived of one's free will.
Churches, even those churches which denounce other churches as being "cults", generally also distance themselves from Anticult ideology because of the Anticultists’ heavily laced pseudo-psychological jargon which negatively construes the conversion process and the regeneration or restoration of the human personality which results from practicing a life of faith. Most Christians who denounce new religious movements are themselves Evangelical. They believe in Heaven and Hell. They adhere to the traditional model of conviction of sin, repentance, acceptance of salvation through Christ, and becoming a new person in Christ. This involves changes in personality, behavior, and lifestyle which are positively viewed and it is believed will provide a person with eternal life in heaven.
The Anticult Movement, on the other hand, has a different view of conversion and life of faith. Conviction of sin is viewed as psychological manipulation through the use of guilt. The doctrinal theory that one’s beliefs and actions can result in a person going to either heaven or hell is viewed as manipulation through fear. Even love is cast in a negative light by Anticultists. Whereas Jesus taught people that the greatest commandment was to love God with all of your heart, soul and mind, and that the second commandment was to love your neighbor as yourself, the Anticultists teach that when members of minority religions treat people with love they are in some sinister way employing psychological coercion.
During his testimony to the task force, Sydney Gulick mentioned the term "snapping." Dr. Gulick was referring to an Anticult book in which two journalists describe conversion as a process in which the brain "snaps" after being subjected to intensive social persuasion. According to this theory, there are no authentic spiritual conversion experiences. What the convert thinks is spiritual experience is actually only an epiphenomenon of a physical process in the brain induced by external stimuli.
According to this analysis, Paul was not converted on the road to Damascus. He snapped. St. Augustine, Martin Luther, St. Francis, all of those people in Christian history who have been known to have experienced dramatic conversions and as a result to have changed their lifestyles were, according to this theory, suffering a personality transformation caused by a form of mental breakdown. Obviously, once adherents of traditional religions consider the implications of Anticult ideology, they are unable to accept it.
Scientific and Scholarly Rejection of Anticult Ideology
Anticult ideology has also been rejected by a majority of scholars and social scientists who have studied it. Anticultists have been criticized for the methodology which they have used in their research, for their faulty reasoning, and for their misleading and emotionally evocative use of language. The American Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association, and the American Society for the Scientific Study of Religion have issued statements stating that the theory of "mind control" or "brainwashing" propounded by self-pronounced "experts on cults" such as Mr. Loomis do not represent the consensus of the scientific community.
As Dr. Miller states:
... there is no evidence that most alternative religions use, on a systematic basis, conversion techniques more intimidating than those generally accepted as legitimate in more conventional religious circles.
Dr. Miller also quotes the conclusion reached by James T. Richardson after an extensive survey of both the scientific and popular literature on the subject.
proponents of the brainwashing thesis ... have not produced evidence to support their position. From our perspective, the burden of proof is on those who proffer the brainwashing hypothesis. Until such evidence is forthcoming, we shall place confidence in the rapidly accumulating body of data which yields a more complex, if mundane explanation for the affiliation and disaffiliation process. ("The Brainwashing/Deprogramming Controversy: An Introduction" as quoted in America's..., p.8)
Bob and Grechen Pasantino of "Answers in Action" also studied the issue and concluded, "the Bogey Man of cult mind control is nothing but a ghost story, good for inducing an adrenaline high and maintaining a crusade, but irrelevant to reality." The Passantinos cited several reasons for their conclusions. In brief, they noted that all experiments in brainwashing, including those conducted by the CIA, had been unsuccessful. They felt it implausible that hundreds of unrelated groups had suddenly simultaneously perfected such techniques, while professionals who were seeking such results found no success. They also noted that new religious movements had high turnover rates, indicating that members were free to leave and were not under mind control.
Biased Data Used by Anticult "Experts"
Virtually all testimony which the Anticult movement produces to support the thesis of brainwashing comes from former members of new religious movements who have been subjected to "deprogramming" or "exit counseling." Such "exit counseling" is in fact one of the main means of recruitment to the Anticult Movement and a key part of the process is to convince the person that they have been brainwashed.
As Dr. Miller points out
Moreover, it is of significance that the typical former member of an alternative religion who alleges that he or she has been psychologically abused by the "cult" typically left the group via deprogramming -- an admittedly intense use of sophisticated psychological tools and techniques designed to change one's mind and behavior. As Eileen Barker has put it some of them are "taught, while undergoing forcible deprogramming, that they were brainwashed."
Several examples of this were seen in the afternoon session of the task force hearing. Professor Gulick produced two witnesses to testify about "cults." Both only came to believe that they were victims of "mind control" techniques after they had been "counseled" by Anticultists. Ironically, after Dr. Gulick and Ron Loomis had explained to the task force that one sign of being a "cult" member was that the person was unable to answer questions or to make decisions for themselves, Professor Gulick insisted that it was important for him to sit with these two adults as they gave testimony. As they did so, Dr. Gulick continually whispered in their ear to guide them in their testimony, and, on numerous occasions when the Chair asked them a question, they looked to Dr. Gulick for direction as to whether or not they should do so.
In their article on Anticult Ideology, Drs. Shupe and Bromley contrast studies by the Anticult movement with studies by other social scientists.
Most ACM (Anticult Movement) research is based on clinical samples of disgruntled or disturbed ex-members, not of fulfilled, functioning religious group members of the type observed by non-ACM researchers who went "into the field" and received much different impressions of life in unconventional religions. As a result, ACM professionals and spokespersons cannot now simply issue sweeping statements about "cults', as activists in the formative stage did, without their instantly becoming testable propositions for investigation. It is safe to say that current ACM frames are no more accepted by most behavioral scientists that they were twenty years ago, even if they are now articulated with a more scientific veneer. (America's ..., p. 413)
An example of the wide gap between the ideology of the Anticult movement and current social science was seen in the testimony given by Dr. William Stewart, an anthropologist who has studied new religious movements. Dr. Stewart began by explaining that most scholars prefer not to use the term "cult" in referring to alternative religious movements because the term has been corrupted by the Anticult movement and the media and has taken on a highly emotional, negative and pejorative meaning in the popular culture. He also confirmed that, in his opinion, the majority of scholars were of the opinion that Anticult theories concerning mind control were unsupported by scientific research.
Use of the word "cult"
The use of the word cult is particularly problematic because of the extremely vague and yet highly pejorative meaning that it has assumed in the popular culture.
Originally, the word cult was used by religious scholars to describe a group of people with a common set of beliefs, rites and practices. In this original sense, the word "cult" could apply to any religion or to specific groups within a general religious tradition.
In the 19th century, sociologists and psychologists of religion began to use the term differentiating between "religion", "sect" and "cult." Sects were smaller offshoots of religions, which while differing in some particulars of faith or practice were still considered a part of the tradition of their parent religion. The word "cult" was used to describe smaller more intense religious groups which may subscribe to new beliefs or beliefs originating outside of the mainstream of the culture. In this scientific definition, there is no pejorative connotation. The term is used as a descriptive term to define size, relation to the general religious tradition and possible origin of belief.
The use of the word "cult" as a hostile term dates back to the 1890’s. Opponents of non-mainstream religions such as the Mormons, Adventists, Spiritualists, Christian Scientists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses began to use the term "cult" to denigrate the movements they opposed. As the first half of the twentieth century progressed, theosophists and others interested in the "occult," rural fundamentalist groups, Pentecostals, and a number of popular religious movements were also attacked as "cults." In the 1930’s and 1940’s there was a period of cult scares fed by pulp magazine stories concerning Satanism, snake-handling, and other sensational (and often racist) phenomenon.
In the early 1970’s, activists opposed to some of the new religious movements which had appeared in America in the 1960’s adopted the use of the word "cult" to describe these groups. As we have seen this latest wave of Anticultists have defined a cult as a group which has charismatic leadership and uses deception and brainwashing to recruit and retain its members. When the concept of brainwashing was discredited in several government studies, the Anticult movement modified its terminology and adopted the concept of "mind control." Gradually, over the past twenty years, Anticultists have expanded the definition of "cult" to include businesses, political groups, satanic groups, new age groups, self-improvement groups, etc. Any organization which is outside of the mainstream, has a convincing message or product, encourages membership, and demands a high degree of commitment is liable to be called a "cult."
The Anticult movement claims that all "cults" use the same methods. The content of their teaching or their motivation make no difference. In their view, not only is there is no difference between a Christian group and a Hindu group, there is no difference between a Neo-Nazi group which preaches racial superiority and a Christian group which preaches love and sacrifice. All are cults. All practice mind control.
While small groups outside the mainstream are those most likely to be called "cults," the term has assumed an extremely subjective meaning. For instance, many members of the Seventh Day Adventists think that the Catholic Church is a cult. At the same time, many Catholics call Adventists cultists. As Dr. Miller states in his book, " 'Cult' today typically means a group that the speaker does not like, considers potentially harmful, and wants to deprecate." (America's_, p.2)
It is for this reason, that scholars have recently been abandoning the use of the term "cult" in favor of "new religious movements," "alternative religious movements," "minority religions," or other similar terms. This is not because they are uncritical of these groups, rather it is because they want to be able to intelligently differentiate between the beliefs and practices of different groups in order to provide accurate study and evaluation. Unfortunately, this desire for accurate understanding has been lacking in the Anticult movement.
There are a wide range of alternative movements. Some are offshoots or revivals within Christianity and Judaism. Some are missionary efforts of Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Islamic movements originating in India, Tibet, Japan, or other countries; some are theosophical or new age; some are eclectic, etc. To clump all such groups together under one pejorative term muddles understanding. It is also extremely unjust.
Personally, I do not like groups which preach hate, racial superiority, or intolerance. Some of the groups that I would include are the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazi groups, Christian Identity and British Israelism. So far as I know none of these groups are active on Maryland campuses. I would also include in this category the Anticult activists who have been active on Maryland campuses and are currently seeking State backing for their efforts. For the reasons I have stated, I believe that Anticultists prey on people's fears in order to create an atmosphere of paranoia and intolerance from which they can profit at the expense of other people's freedom. I believe that they also cater to people's racial prejudices since many of the groups that they pick on were founded by or contain beliefs from people of other races or cultures.
I think that this task force has been hindered in its mission by the adoption of the Anticult movement’s terminology. As of the end of the meeting on the 25th of May, the task force still did not have any clear definition of what it was that they were supposed to be studying. Mr. Loomis gave the Anticult movement's definition. Dr. Stuart responded to the Chairs request for a definition by replying, "new religious movements." After a bit of thought he amended it to included "or activities."
A Kafkaesque Afternoon
The afternoon session of the Task Force’s May 25th meeting produced little or no evidence of "dangerous cult activity" on Maryland campuses. For three hours or more we listened to several people make vague accusations against unnamed groups. Much of the testimony concerned events or groups that those testifying admitted had nothing to do with Maryland campuses.
Of the "former members" of cults who testified, only one was a student in the University of Maryland System. He had been witnessed to by a church group. Although he did he did not name any group, I believe that every one in the room knew that he was referring to the International Churches of Christ. It was unclear if he actually joined the group, but in any case he attended prayer meetings and Bible studies, met regularly with a "discipler" and donated an unspecified portion of his earnings. According to his testimony he did not give any of his scholarship funds to them, nor did he indicate that they asked him for them. He alleged that as a result of his involvement, his grades dropped and that his relationship with his family suffered.
When Professor Gulick found out that he was involved in this group he intervened, and this student now believes that he was under mind control. His characterization of the form of mind control was that they made him feel guilty for sins that he had committed, that they taught that people who were a part of the church were living in the light while people outside of the church were living in darkness, and that several people called him after he decided not to participate any longer and tried to convince him to remain involved. He alleges that, while associating with the church, members encouraged him to confess his sins and that when he did so, they took notes. When he left the church they then reminded him of sins he had committed in past and warned him that, if he left the church, he may fall back into the same pattern of immoral behavior.
The next "former member" was not, nor had she ever been, a student in the University of Maryland System. When she mentioned that she had attended the Maryland Institute of Art in Baltimore, the Chair advised her that they were studying "cult activity in the University of Maryland System," and that her testimony was thus not directly relevant but invited her to proceed on the basis that they may learn some useful information about the methods that "cults" use.
This young lady, 26 years of age, had already graduated from the Maryland Institute and was trying to decide how to pursue her career, when she met a group of successful people who were active in a number of professions in Baltimore. She was invited to attend some kind of a seminar. She thought that, since the people who were inviting her were very attractive and successful, it would be valuable to associate with them in order to further her career. She was told by somebody that if she paid for the seminars then she would get more out of them because paying money showed commitment. She gave no indication of how much money she paid, what the seminars were about, or how many seminars she went to. She also did not say why or when she stopped going.
She did indicate that she now attends Anticult meetings with former "cult" members. Apparently, she was inspired by this self-improvement organization -- or whatever it was -- and had begun to attend their seminars when Anticult professionals intervened. She now believes that she was under mind-control. As evidence of this, she said that as the speakers addressed the audience at these seminars they moved back and forth, and also closer to the audience and then further away. She also said that the group drew the curtains closed and was using "neuro-linguistics." Personally, I had no idea of what she was talking about, and I seriously doubt that any member of the task force, if asked on the basis of her testimony to explain what she was talking about, could do so. My impression was that it was simply accepted that this was a cult, and by implication that all cults engage in such practices.
Apparently, the "successful, attractive, professionals" whom she met and associated with do not feel that they are under mind control and attribute some degree of their happiness and success to their participation in these vaguely defined activities. None of these activities had anything to do with any college campus.
As mentioned earlier, Dr. Gulick insisted on sitting with these first two "former cult members" during their testimony whispering advice, passing notes, and indicating to them whether or not they should answer questions. I thought this was amusing and mention it because several of the Anticult "experts" had testified that this kind of behavior was evidence of possible cult involvement and mind control. While I do not agree with the theory of mind control, I think that this was an example of the degree of influence that Anticultists exercise over their proteges.
The third "former cult member" was also not currently a student in the Maryland System. At an unspecified time in the past she attended Bowie State for an unspecified period of time. Her testimony was that her parents with whom she lived before going to college, were members of a "cult." To support this assertion she said that they told her that she should wear long dresses. She declined to identify the name the alleged "cult" to which her parents belonged. Apparently, while attending Bowie State, she converted to another church of her own free will. As a result of that conversion, she is now a student at Washington Bible College. The only testimony she offered that had any relevance to alleged "cult" activity on U of M campuses was her statement that on one occasion while she was a student at Bowie State she was witnessed to by a member of the International Churches of Christ.
This testimony offered by these three "former cult members" would seem to confirm the responses to the questionnaire sent out by the task force. Twelve of the 13 schools said that they were not aware of any activity by "dangerous cults." In the testimony offered, the only activity mentioned on any University of Maryland campuses -- or any campuses for that matter — was that by the International Churches of Christ. I am concerned that no member of this church was present to hear and answer the accusations being made about them.
Task force reflections
In light of the fact that there was very little evidence of "cult" activity on college campuses, the task force members' comments afterwards seemed a bit unusual. One member said that it appears that the problem is much greater than they had imagined and may involve a much broader problem. Another congratulated the task force on such a balanced presentation hearing so many sides of the issue. Others made similar statements.
After hearing such comments, Dr. Stuart asked for permission from the Chair to make a comment in response. He said that he was alarmed to hear the committee congratulating themselves on a fair hearing. He stated that he felt that the serious issues that he had raised in the morning had been largely ignored and that the hearings had, in fact, been almost totally one-sided.
Chairman Woods responded that he viewed the task force proceedings as being similar to a courtroom trial. Using this analogy, he explained that he viewed the days proceedings as the opportunity for the prosecution to present its case, and he said that in upcoming testimony the accused would have an opportunity to present their defense.
While I appreciate the effort that Mr. Woods is making to conduct a fair hearing, I do have some reservations concerning the courtroom model. My first reservation is that the terms "prosecution" and "defense" generally refer to the sides in a criminal trial. Furthermore, in such cases, the role of prosecutor is generally played by the State. The implication of this language is that some groups are accused of criminal activity and that the vague accusations made by the Anticultists constitute a prosecutorial case made on behalf of the State of Maryland. This is obviously not true.
Furthermore, it is unclear as to who it is that is being accused and for what actions that they are accused. Only Ron Loomis named two groups -- the Unification Church and International Churches of Christ, -- but, so far as I can recall, Mr. Loomis did not make any specific charges of any incidences of illegal or even unethical behavior by these groups on any Maryland campuses. All others who testified resolutely refused to name any groups that they were referring to.
Who is it that is supposed to be making a defense, and what is it that they are supposed to be defending themselves against? Conducting Bible studies and prayer meetings? Telling a student that they would go to hell if they lived a life of sin? Telling a girl that she should wear long dresses?
Furthermore, as far as I know, no effort had been made to contact any alleged "cult" in order to let them know that they were accused of something or that they would have the opportunity to face their accusers or to make a defense. Obviously such proceedings would never be allowed in a courtroom. Furthermore, I don’t think that the legislature intended that a task force commissioned with a mission of inquiry would be a trial.
All in all, the days proceedings were extremely bizarre and surreal. If I were to use a courtroom analogy, the one that I would use would be from Franz Kafka’s The Trial. In fact, after the hearing, I did tell several members of the task force that I felt as though I were sitting through several scenes of a Kafka novel. A person sitting next to me went even further and jotted down a note "Malleus Maleficarum." This book, otherwise known as the "Hammer of the Witches" was the textbook of the Inquisition in the latter Middle Ages which helped to inflame the hysteria of the witch hunts of that period.
Intimidation
As a student and employee of the University of Maryland system was extremely upsetting and intimidating. Since one of the thing discussed in the hearings was the screening of University employees to identify "cult" members, I had to consider that in identifying myself as a Unification Church member to the Task Force and to the members of the Anticult movement who were present I could possibly be jeopardizing my education and my employment. I was so upset that on the following day, May 26, I went to visit Dr. H. Mebane Turner in his office at the University of Baltimore. He was surprised to learn that such a task force existed and expressed his concern that it may violate people’s religious freedom. He told me not to worry about my employment and to feel free to go before the committee and speak my mind.
Recommendations for the Legislature and the University of Maryland System
My primary recommendation to the legislature is that they do not adopt the ideology of the Anticult Movement in formulating University policies or hire so called "anti-cult experts" to train University of Maryland personnel or to counsel students. To do so would be a discredit to the University System and the State of Maryland and could lead to serious civil rights violations and possibly costly legislation.
My second recommendation to the University System and the Legislature would be that they seek out credible religious scholars and social scientists before venturing into the questionable ground of trying to decide what groups are acceptable and what are not.
My third recommendation is that the Legislature seek a full briefing on Constitutional, civil rights, discrimination, and harassment issues in any discussions aimed and defining regulations which would target specific campus organizations.
My fourth recommendation is that ethical guidelines and regulations for campus organizations be defined and stated in a clear and understandable terms, and that any such regulations be uniformly applicable to all campus organizations. I understand that the University has the right and responsibility to establish rules for campus organizations. Repeated violations of such regulations, especially after notification, should be grounds, subject to due process, for loss of privileges or recognition, but absent such violations all organizations should be free to enjoy equal rights of association, speech, etc. free from harassment or discrimination. Vaguely defined regulations and/or regulations which target certain groups should be rejected.
Larger Issues
Having briefly stated these few recommendations to the Task Force and the Legislature, I think that it is important to address larger trends in our culture and society which I believe underlie this present controversy.
The twentieth century has been the century of scientific modernism. The secular state university is itself largely a product of modernism. Forty years ago, most social scientists felt that we were entering an age of secularism in which science would provide the answers and pave the was to an orderly, rational, and prosperous world. As we approach the end of the century however an increasing number of scholars have proclaimed that we are entering the "post-modern" age.
Foe example, in 1995, Harvey Cox of Harvard University published a book entitled Fire From Heaven in 1995. The book was the result of several years spent traveling across the United States and to four continents studying the growth of the Pentecostal movement. In his introduction, Dr. Cox states
Nearly three decades ago I wrote a book, The Secular City, in which I tried to work out a theology for the "postreligious" age that many sociologists had confidently assured us was coming. Since then, however, religion… seems to have gained a new lease on life. Today, it is secularity, not spirituality, that may be headed for extinction….
The prognosticators had written that the technological pace and urban bustle of the twentieth century would increasingly shove religion to the margin where, deprived of roots, it would shrivel…
This did not happen. Instead, before the academic forecasters could even draw their pensions, a religious renaissance is under way all over the globe…. We are definitely in a period of renewed religious vitality, another "great awakening" …with all the promise and peril religious revivals always bring with them, but this time on a world scale.
Dr. Cox notes that phenomena is occurring not only within Christianity but can be perceived in all of the world’s religions. Cox’s observations have been confirmed by numerous polls. I have also seen evidence of this as a student. I do not know what groups any of my fellow students belong to, but I have seen a strong degree of interest in spiritual matters. In both classroom discussions and personal conversations, I have heard students express a wide range of strongly held beliefs. In nonfiction, fiction, and poetry writing assignments, many students have chosen to write about issues concerning Christian faith, astrology, life after death experiences, shamanism, and a wide range of other spiritual topics.
In my opinion, many people, and in particular young people, are looking for answers concerning meaning and vision in their life. Often, young adults are often dissatisfied with he limitations of both secularism and traditional mainstream religions.
To quote from the concluding chapter Fire from Heaven, Dr. Cox states
For the past three centuries, two principle contenders - scientific modernity and traditional religion have clashed over the privilege of being the ultimate source of meaning and value. Now like tired boxers who have slugged away too long, the two have reached an exhausted stalemate. As British rock singer Sting laments in one of his most popular songs, many have now lost faith in "science and progress" and in "the holy church." People are still willing to rely on science for the limited things it has proven it can do, but they no longer believe it will answer their deepest questions. They remain vaguely intrigued with the traditional religions, but not with the conventional churches… But the loss of direction Sting sings about also has a positive side. Increasing numbers of people appear ready to move on, and are looking for a more promising map of the life-world.
This process has been going on for some years. It is evidenced in the popularity of such movies as "What Dreams May Come," and books like Conversations with God and the Celestine Prophecy, which rose to the top of the New York Times Bestseller List. I believe that our culture is going through a period of transition in which secularism and religion are seeking a new form of synthesis.
While this phenomenon affects the culture in general it has a particularly strong impact on young people who are going through the process of defining their identities and determining their world view. Universities are traditionally the centers for pursuing truth. However, secular universities often fail to provide a forum for fundamental issues. They provide a lot of information and valuable technical and career training but they are hollow when it comes to addressing questions concerning spiritual values, meaning and identity. Some universities have recognized this lack and are taking steps to addressing it. For instance, Princeton and Cambridge Universities have both established lectureships on the relation between science and religion.
The point is that the society is becoming more spiritual and religious and that many secular institutions are not keeping pace with this change. Education and job security are not the only priorities in a young adults life. Sometimes the quest for meaning may even be greater. This is a part of what the authors of the Declaration of Independence called the "pursuit of happiness." It is natural that these young people will for answers by reading books, talking with their friends, and studying the teachings and practices of organizations which are offering answers to these questions.
I believe that this situation presents a major challenge to the modern university and to the University of Maryland System in particular. Rather than seeking to limit the freedom of individuals and organizations, I believe that the university should seek to foster and environment in which the quest for truth, meaning, and happiness is facilitated.
I am not suggesting that universities should attempt to teach an authoritative system of answers to life’s ultimate questions. Obviously for a state institution to do so would be unconstitutional. What I am suggesting is that the university should strive to maintain an open atmosphere in which the pursuit of truth is fostered. I think that a variety of courses, such as those I just mentioned at Princeton and Cambridge, should at very least address these basic social and cultural issues.
To foster a neutral environment in which a broad range of views, opinions, and beliefs can be discussed would not only be fully consonant with the University of Maryland System’s stated goal of cultural diversity, but, I believe, could lead toward a much more rewarding university life which would contribute toward the cherished goal stated in one of our nation’s chosen mottoes "E Pluribus Unum" -- unity in diversity, or out of many one.
Given that American society is becoming increasingly pluralistic, I think that such a university environment would provide valuable preparation for adult life by helping students to understand, appreciate, and respect others beliefs and practices and would be the best way to assist students in making informed choices concerning their associations with various organizations.
As a final recommendation, I think that the University of Maryland’s system of campus ministries should be evaluated to ensure that it is inclusive of all faiths including new religious movements and to insure that ministers of established mainstream faiths do not use a State sponsored position of authority to discriminate against minority religions.
Thank you very much for allowing me to contribute my opinion to this task force and to the legislature. I sincerely hope that all Maryland citizens can work together to achieve a just, harmonious, and happy society.