submitted to
Mr. Chairman, members of the Task Force
My name is Dan Fefferman, and I am the Executive Director of the International Coalition for Religious Freedom. The ICRF is an educational organization defending religious freedom of all people regardless of creed, race, nationality or gender. Last year we held four international conferences on the theme "Religious Freedom and the New Millennium," held in Washington, Tokyo, Berlin and Sao Paulo. This year we are working on publishing a volume of nearly 100 scholarly papers from those conferences. I have held numerous leadership positions in the Unification movement in the United States and am proud to have been personally identified by the New York Times as one of the closest US associates of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. I earned my BA in political science form the University of California at Berkeley in 1971 and my M.Div. diploma from the Unification Theological Seminary in Barrytown, New York, in 1986.
Mr. Chairman, it is said that he who does not study history is doomed to repeat it. It is important for this Task Force to understand the political history that preceded its creation and not to allow itself to be used by the anti-cult movement to achieve political ends that will result in the spread of religious intolerance. In addition, I believe the anti-cult movement itself is a group that could be studied under the Task Force's mission statement, and I intend to say something about its motives and activities. Finally, I would like to stimulate the Task Force to do some self-reflection.
Anti-Cultism in Maryland
My first experience with the anti-cult movement in Maryland was an event in 1976 in Silver Spring. I was leading a performing arts troupe promoting Rev. Moon's rally at the Washington Monument, and our team was staying at a motel in Silver Spring. The trumpet player in the band was a man of about 23 years old named Alan Feldsott. One night, without warning, about half a dozen squad cars pulled up in front of the motel. I was called down from my room to negotiate with them. They demanded that I produce Alan Feldsott and showed me a guardianship or "conservatorship" order authorizing them to deliver him into the custody of his relatives and deprogrammers. He had been declared mentally incompetent by a judge who had never seen him, on the basis of the analysis of a psychologist who had never even spoken to him. I told the police I would not cooperate with such a violation of an adult US citizen's civil rights. However, I had no power to stop them from searching. They searched our sleeping rooms, meeting rooms, and the motel dining room where band members were eating and relaxing at the time. I witnessed one officer use his billy club to smash the window of our bus after the driver simply asked if he had a search warrant. But the Maryland police never found Alan Feldsott. Alan was hiding in the bass drum case. Around midnight, while squad cars continued to stake the place out, we loaded the case in a van, and I smuggled him across the District Line to safety.
A few days later, another young man was not so lucky. During Rev. Moon's Washington Monument Rally to honor American's Bicentennial, in from of a crowd of hundreds of thousands of people, this young man was dragged kicking and screaming from the Washington Monument grounds by National Park Police, another victim of a conservatorship for purposes of deprogramming. We never heard from him again.
By 1978, the year of Jonestown, a wave of anti-cult hysteria had indeed swept the country. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of Unificationists, Children of God, Scientologists, Khrishna devotees, and other new religious adherents were forcibly abducted each year for purposes of deprogramming.
Maryland Anti-Cult Legislation
Let us now look at the legislative history of anti-cultism in Maryland. In the early 1980's the media was have a field day with the cult issue, and anti-cult movement hit its stride. It even began to make inroads into some state legislatures. At least four bills were discussed by the Maryland legislature in the 1980s, although there could have been more that I am not aware of.
By the 1990s, the anti-cult movement was on the defensive. Deprogrammers received jail sentences, and in the mid-nineties the Cult Awareness Network lost a multi-million dollar settlement in a deprogramming suit that drove it out of business. The movement has spent the last few years trying to reorganize itself and get back on its feet.
The Maryland Task Force on the Effects of Cult Activities
Finally we come to present day. The creation of this Task Force represents a self-proclaimed victory for the anti-cult movement. This is what an advertising brochure of the national CULTINFO (now called the Leo J. Ryan Institute) conference last February, billing itself as the resurrection of the Cult Awareness community, stated: "Hear the story of how one angry mom took on the cults in the Maryland State Legislature and won! Sandra (Stephon) has shown us a valuable weapon... This encouraging development will energize you and show how you can use this tool in your state legislature."
In her presentation, Mrs. Stephon confided that she did not really "take on" the cults. She worked quietly behind the scenes, persuading legislators to adopt official anti-cult language which, according to Delegate Grossfeld at least, they didn't really mean. Committee hearings were completely one-sided. HJR 22 of 1998 had already passed the House and was within two days of passing the Senate before its opponents even learned about it. By that time, with nearly 200 other bills to deal with, the Senate was too distracted even to debate the issue. And thus, the anti-cult movement in Maryland obtained its first major victory.
A Time for Reflection
Mr. Chairman, this Task Force needs to engage in some self-reflection. What does the anti-cult movement hope to achieve here and should the Task Force cooperate with it? I see five objectives. 1) Legitimacy for anti-cult commissions in the US and abroad. The US State Department and the Helsinki Commission have rightfully criticized European governments for creating "sect oversight commissions," "sect observatories," etc. European anti-cultists particularly are hoping this Task Force will enable them to justify their religious intolerance and accuse the US of hypocrisy. 2) The domestic anti-cult movement sees this Task Force as the first step toward expanded government involvement in the "cult" issue and as a precedent for more commissions in other states. 3) As Mr. Loomis made quite plain in his testimony, anti-cultists want the State and the University to hire them for a fee to do anti-cult education programs. 4) The anti-cultists want the Task Force to recommend that University and State regulations be beefed up so that cults are less free to operate than they are now. 5) The anti-cult movement wants this Task Force to give the imprimatur of the State of Maryland to its list of cult "behaviors" and "characteristics."
A Chilling Effect
I can guarantee you, Mr. Chairman that if this Task Force publishes a list of "behaviors," "traits," "characteristics," or what have you, in its report on "Cult Activities" all the disclaimers in the world about "not using the word cult" will be meaningless. This Task Force's report will be used by the media and the anti-cult movement in such a way that a chilling effect on religious freedom will be felt by the religious minorities.
When the French "sect" report came out, a tabloid declared: "Someone Must Do Something About the Sects!" Two days later a Unification Church center in Paris was bombed. French police have raided Scientology schools. In other countries, dozens of children whose parents are members of the Family (formerly the Children of God) have been forcibly removed from their parents for months without due process. It is small consolation that these parents were later cleared of wrongdoing. Rev. and Mrs. Moon have been banned from traveling in seven major European countries. In Germany today, if you want to join either major political party, you have to sign a document saying you are not a member of the Church of Scientology. Forced deprogrammings by the hundreds take place in Japan and by the scores in Europe each year. Mr. Chairman, these things are not happening in communist China, Russia or the Sudan. They are happening in the Western democracies and Japan. And they are happening as a direct consequence of intolerance generated in part by government commissions and task forces such as this one.
Has this Task Force in fact become a group that causes harm to University System students and to the climate of religious freedom in the System itself? I am in touch with several students and parents, as well as employees of the University, who are experiencing real problems as a result of this Task Force. Alex Colvin, a graduate student at the University of Baltimore and a University System has expressed concern that by his speaking out in this Task Force's open forum, he may have placed his employment, education and career in jeopardy. You will also recall that a member of the Task Force made a public threat of physical violence against Mr. Colvin. Hana Lyn Colvin also spoke in the public forum and stated that the atmosphere of scrutiny against "groups," generated by this Task Force is causing her to consider going out of state to pursue her very promising academic career. I think the Colvin family should be commended for its courage to speak out. But I am also aware of other Unification Church members who are employed and/or studying at the University System, but understandably do not wish to come forward and be publicly identified because they are afraid of the ramifications.
Several members of the International Churches of Christ have also expressed that they feel the Task Force is targeting them. I think this opinion is certainly not without basis, given the number of witnesses that have been invited to testify against the ICOC and the fact that a member of the Task Force is the mother of a former ICOC member.
More recently, the Task Force has issued a questionnaire that I believe creates a serious problem for the associational freedom and privacy of students. The questionnaire asks University-affiliated psychological counselors to reply to the following:
Mr. Chairman, this is an action by the State, requiring psychologists to reveal information volunteer to them by students under guarantees of confidentiality. Even aside from the question of church-state relations and religious freedom, it is a violation of a sacred trust between counselors and their clients.
That this questionnaire was distributed to counselors is a serious problem in itself. That it was distributed also to faculty, chaplains, and resident directors as well indicates an even greater disregard for students' privacy, and freedom of association. That "cults" are mentioned several times in the cover letter and questionnaire itself as the "groups" under investigation makes the matter even more serious. This Task Force, whether intentionally or not-- is using University chaplains, resident directors, faculty, and psychological counselors as agents to collect intelligence on minority religions, groups it designates as "cults."
Mr. Chairman, we're all familiar with the story of the Emperor's new clothes. The Task Force has rightfully recognized that the term "cult" is problematic. However, simply to say you will stop using the term, while continuing to use it time and again in deliberations, while keeping the title of studying "cult activities," and preparing to issue a report on "cult activities" is equally problematic. In fact, one might even question whether the Task Force itself isn't practicing a little "heavenly deception" in this regard.
The name of this task force is The Task Force to Study the Effects of Cult Activities on Public Senior Higher Education Institutions. It is listed by the State Legislature as a task force under the category "Religion, see also Churches." Its legislative mandate directs the Task Force to study "cult activities." The authorizing legislation uses the word "cult" no less than 18 times.
What witnesses has the Task Force called? In its first five meetings, I have identified seven categories of witnesses invited by the Task Force: 1) anti-cult advocates 2) former "cultists" 3) parents of "cultists" or of former "cultists" 4) mainstream ministers involved in counter-"cult" activities 5) university officials 6) scholars associated with major universities in the field of new religions and 7) a state legislator. Until today religious freedom advocates and representatives of the new religions under scrutiny have been relegated to the open forum session. Much of this imbalance, I submit results from the fact that the so-called Subcommittee on Outside Resources is dominated by anti-cult advocates and has held no public meetings. I have filed a complaint about this with the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board
But let's go beyond analogies, and look at its behavior. What problematic "groups" has the Task Force studied and, just as importantly, not studied? The Task Force has heard testimony mainly-almost exclusively in fact--about religious groups. It has not heard testimony about the fraternities that have caused serious problems in the form of hazing, drinking, wild parties, diminished grades of students, and even death. It has not taken testimony regarding university sports teams that have caused problems in terms of serious injury to students and diminished academic performance. It has not taken testimony about gay groups, which have caused problems for parents whose children adopt this alternative lifestyle, and health problems for students because of high risk sexual behavior. It has not taken testimony from campus police or other experts about campus groups such as prostitution rings or drug rings. It has not examined far left extremist groups that call for the overthrow of the US government. Not that I think each of these groups needs to be examined by a State Task Force. I mention them because they are "groups" which I think cause just as many if not more serious "problems" than "cults" but are being ignored here. In sum, the Task Force, while claiming it is not focusing on cults or religious groups, has done exactly what it claims it is not doing, and it has done so to the exclusion of other well known groups that clearly fit into its mission statement. The idea that these religious groups just "happen" to be the only groups that fit with its mission statement is patently false.
Mr. Chairman, in my opinion the Task Force has become mired in a hopeless situation. It does not have time even to balance the record on the question of cults, let alone examine the other "groups" it should examine if it were to take its mission statement seriously.
Under this circumstance, the most honorable thing to do would be to recognize that its originally mandated task is unconstitutional and to disband itself here and now.
Failing that, the second best thing the Task Force could to would be to decide to issue no report, on the grounds that to do so under the title of "Study on the Effects of Cult Activities..." is improper.
However if the Task Force were to issue a report, I would recommend the following,
Mr. Chairman, members of the Task Force, with Thomas More was appointed Lord Chancellor by Henry the VIII, he was expected to go along with the King's plans, but instead he followed his conscience. He lost his life, but he gained a place in history as a saint who refused to cater to the political whims of the State. This Task Force was created by the State to do something that the State must not do in this country: investigate "cults." Rather than violate the Constitution of the United, I implore you to do the honorable thing. Do not bow to the unprincipled action of the State, manipulated as it was by a secretive lobbying campaign by a religiously intolerant group. Follow your consciences. Give up this unconstitutional mission. Do not give the State and the anti-cult movement any report at all.