|
Reflecting on Cultural Diversity in
Response to Cultic Activity
Herbert L. Rosedale
Abstract
The problems posed by cultic groups
highlight the need for societies to continually balance competing rights of and
obligations to its citizens. The use of “freedom of religion” as a slogan to
protect abuses perpetrated by groups should be exposed as simplistic. Likewise,
attempts to suppress noncomformity in the name of social order and protection
should also be exposed. Responsible and careful scrutiny of harms perpetrated by
groups and harms implicit in state proposals to limit group-perpetrated harms is
needed. Such scrutiny should occur in a climate that encourages open dialogue
among parties inclined toward different views of the proper social balancing of
rights and state obligations.
The study of cultic activity includes issues involving the
abuse of power, pressured manipulation, and deprivation of informed choice,
regardless of the alleged religious justification. In recent years it has
become increasingly clear that authorities around the world are examining these
issues. It is necessary, therefore, to avoid simple, ethnocentric analyses and
responses. Instead, focus must be upon disciplined, objective, and factual
scrutiny.
Such examination must seek to elicit shared values in regard
to the human condition and relationships, while retaining recognition of the
need for respect and for restraints on infliction of unconsented-to harm. (I
use the perhaps awkward adjectival construction “unconsented-to” in order to
emphasize that in this area the legal system’s primary concern is harm to which
victims do not give free and unpreserved consent.) Among our goals should be
the recognition of responsibility as a concomitant of power and the furtherance
of dialogue to define the spectrum of tolerance.
At the same time, however, we cannot impose on such study a
local view of history and culture. Neither may we assume that deviance from
parochial behavior patterns requires ideological correction. These issues have
surfaced as the American Family Foundation has facilitated international and
intercultural exchanges of views on cult-related issues. They cast light on the
divergences in different societies' responses to perceived cult activity and are
often best viewed considering the particular political and social relationships
and history of that society.
I here endeavor to briefly touch on a number of these complex
issues. Preliminary analysis shows that when we seriously address cult-related
issues we are on the cutting edge of some of the most difficult intellectual and
social issues of our time. Among those prominently addressed are relationships
between the individual and society and the polity's role as the guardian of or
threat to essential human values. Consideration must be given to the
establishment of limits on the absolute freedom of individuals to act out their
desires without regard to the consequences on others. Another element of the
matrix is society's obligation to provide for its members' education, health,
and welfare while permitting diversity and choice. Finally, in our dialogue we
seek to recognize some commonality that proceeds from our increasingly global
interface while still preserving the multiple individual cultural heritages that
make each of us different from our neighbor.
Religion and Secular Worlds
A society's response to perceived cultic activity is often
affected by its view of the separation of church and state and the appropriate
social roles of religious, mystical, and nonrational behavior. A society may
institutionally link church and state, but even with an "established" religion
varying degrees of tolerance of religious and social dissent may exist. A
particular society may see cultic activity as a falling away from the true faith
and ideology binding the society together and, consequently, as a threat to the
society's goal of achieving religious or political salvation. In such
societies, heresy can be secular and cultic activists may be seen as politically
revolutionary. Even absent an ideology demanding conformity in society, cultic
activity can often be viewed as a destabilizing threat to the rule of law and
the political structure.
Societies that seek to protect religious freedom through a
separation of church and state may nonetheless permit the regulation of
activities conducted in the name of religion, if they violate that society's
view of essential human rights. Examples have included inflicting torture,
denying medical care to minors, and practicing slavery. Determination of what
factually constitutes infliction of unacceptable harm may differ depending upon
varying constitutional and political forms. Such a determination, however,
depends upon thoughtful and careful assessment of specific situations. Using
“religious freedom” as a slogan to avoid confronting these complex issues is a
perversion of the true meaning of human rights and a cover for abusive religious
conduct that should be exposed and criticized, not hidden from public scrutiny.
This approach can help us understand why the United States
Supreme Court found that polygamy violates the law, regardless of its religious
sanction, while the "I Am" group could receive constitutional protection for its
manipulative preaching, even as it continued to prey upon victims of its fraud.
The perceived family threat violated core social values, but the Court balked at
imposing fraud regulation on the preaching of some religious groups. Today we
see change in both areas, as some politically sensitive officials refrain from
prosecuting polygamy and its consequences while others seek out consumer fraud
grounds to hold religious charlatans accountable. These changes reflect
cultural trends over time within a society. Differences in assessments
concerning the balancing of rights and state obligations, however, occur at any
given moment across national boundaries.
There is, of course, a distinction that is commonly made in
most societies. When a religious group ventures into the commercial area and
sells products, not preaching, the religious identity of the seller does not
avoid state regulation of such matters as wage and tax payments, consumer
labeling, and fraud.
Likewise, the separation of church and state does not wholly
preclude examination of the bona fides of adopting a religious label. This area
of investigation, which often turns on sincerity of belief, tends to tread
close, however, to the monitoring of the acceptability of ideas.
When a society evaluates its treatment of mystical and
nonrational behavior, conflicts often arise when such behavior intrudes upon
state educational, health, and family policies. Thus, introduction of some
kinds of faith-based healing in lieu of medical treatment can raise social
conflicts, as can ideologically driven attempts to revise conventional views of
history, science, and society as taught in public schools and elsewhere.
Examples include the disputes over teaching creationism in public schools, the
prosecution of the Church of Scientology and certain of its members, and the
prosecution of the Alamo Foundation for the illegal exploitation of its members.
The Chinese situation vis a vis cults is especially
interesting and illuminating. In evaluating the current situation in China, we
should examine the reasons why the Chinese sought to regulate and control Falun
Gong. They perceived its practices as a widespread threat to health, family
well being, and social order. When its members proliferated and challenged the
social and political structure, the State confronted Falun Gong. Yet the
government appears to tolerate the Unification Church, which, though it has
political dogma inconsistent with the establishment's view, promotes behaviors
consistent with official family policies.
Regulation of religious groups and state action against
religious group members who violate core social values does not ipso facto
constitute an abridgment of the rights of the group's members. It is not that
simple. Before a balanced judgment can be made, it is necessary to determine if
the religious group has indeed caused harm and, if so, whether or not a proposed
remedy will successfully ameliorate the harm or do more harm than the perceived
problem. Depending upon the specific nature of the problem and the proposed
remedy, it may sometimes be appropriate to regulate religious behavior, while at
other times it may be inappropriate.
In responding to the perceived harm of cultic activity,
governments can take various approaches. In some instances, the approaches may
involve criminal prosecution; in other instances, they may involve the
withdrawal of tax or other benefits accorded a religion or not-for-profit
group. Alternatively, governments may apply licensing procedures to activities
of a group, whether those regulatory restrictions are professional or commercial
or derived from criteria for eligibility for recognition as a religion.
In these contexts, however, as we search for common global
values, it is necessary that the methods used by the society to address the harm
inflicted by cults and related groups be consistent with the recognition of
commonly respected human rights and values. Actions to protect against
perceived injury are just as subject to critical inquiry as the harm itself.
Thus, societies may pervert processes and institutions that help maintain social
stability by zealously and indiscriminately suppressing a perceived threat. The
possible negative consequences of means must always be weighed against the
beneficent ends that are desired. Abandonment of the rule of law and the
perversion of psychiatric and medical treatment so as to re-indoctrinate or
correct deviant views is an example of overzealous “threat management.” These
and other kinds of governmental overreaction should not be immunized from
critical scrutiny and condemnation.
As we see more globalization of communities and information,
these inquiries surface. There should be no place for concealed cruelty.
Objective examination should be encouraged as part of the response to the
problems posed by cultic activity. We must, if we are to be responsible,
continually examine both cult harm and the responses to such harm. We should
not focus solely on condemning the inquiry or response without condemning the
harm caused by the group, if indeed the group has been shown to be a perpetrator
of harm. Neither, however, should we condemn the harm and ignore excesses and
abuses in the responses.
The Interests of Society and its Members
Regardless of its specific form, the social polity has
obligations to its members. Caveat emptor is not applicable to health, safety,
and welfare. Nor does society abdicate its obligations in favor of charlatans,
manipulators, abusers, and fraudulent promoters. Free speech does not protect
against the regulation of consumer fraud or the shouting of fire in a crowded
theater. The state takes action to protect the health of its members by
providing for immunization, vaccination, and state supported treatment
facilities for those suffering mental and physical illness and disability.
What, however, is the state's role in education and the development of critical
thought of its citizens? What is an appropriate state role in licensing and
supervision of professionals? Some societies are more proactive than others in
these areas.
Cultic oriented practitioners often trumpet the assertion that
they have uniquely successful methods of education, health protection, formulas
for prosperity, and keys to success, whether based on magic, faith, or
proprietary dogma. Toleration of some alternative approaches to social concerns
is sometimes acceptable, but at other times, to do so would abandon society's
obligations to its citizens. It is one thing for a society to allow speculation
as to the causes of a particular historical event. It is another to allow
medical procedures to be consummated without sterilization or to have infected
persons or animals roam freely to spread disease among the healthy. Allowing
freedom to express one's unpopular opinions, wear bizarre costumes, or engage in
ceremonial theatrics does not evidence abdication from regulation of
unconsented-to harm.
Balancing the right and obligations of a state to protect its
members and their property may sometimes require special restrictions to protect
those who are more vulnerable. In many areas, cult regulation uses as a basis
criteria of consumer regulation and protection against fraud, notwithstanding
the fact that these may impinge upon absolute free speech and expression. There
seems to be no general call for abolition of fraudulent securities promotion or
the placing of warning labels on poisonous products. Hence, the general
principal of balancing rights and obligations is not challenged, even though
disputes may arise about its applicability in specific areas involving cultic
groups.
Recent prosecutions for infliction of corporal punishment on
children, which was defended as religiously motivated "discipline," have led to
determinations in which the state has exercised parens patria custody
rights over those children to protect them against further abuse. Criminal
verdicts against parents for starving children or denying them medical care for
commonly recognized illnesses have been rendered in a number of jurisdictions in
various countries. Compulsory vaccination and blood transfusions for minors are
sometimes imposed over parents' religious objections, as is the requirement to
attend school. In a number of instances, societies have imposed a standard of
heightened protection for those whose capacity is impaired or who are placed in
situations which openly foster the abuse of power or the deprivation of free
will. Liability for abuse of trust and confidence may be imposed on doctors,
lawyers, gurus, priests, and teachers. In situations involving abuse of trust,
coercion is not required to be physical, and both the state and society
recognize that setting and role often provide the background for non-physically
coercive circumstances.
Recently, in the United States a dialogue has commenced in
conjunction with proposed government funding of faith-based programs to achieve
desired social ends. Opinions differ as to whether the good works achieved are
over balanced by the risks inherent in supervision and control that follows
governmental funding. A dialogue about means and ends, and who will have the
task of guarding the guardians seems inevitable.
Professional Regulation and the State
By undertaking professional recognition and regulation, the
state enters into a relationship with the profession as a whole and establishes
a responsible regulatory environment with individual members of the profession.
In establishing boundaries of protection for its members, a
society may determine to grant certain groups particular rights (e.g., tax
benefits to religions, the right to carry weapons to police) or to give to other
groups the imprimatur of state sanction as evidence of competence and authority
(e.g., engineering and plumbing licenses and status as pharmacists, doctors,
lawyers, psychologists, and teachers).
In many instances, state regulation and supervision is
supplemented by peer review and the development of codes of ethical restraint
and review to check the potential abuse of laypersons by professionals.
Thus, society is concerned with the impact of professions on
society. With some professions, the focus is on competence – such as
engineering and plumbing – but with others, the role of regulation takes on
varying hues based on the social matrix. Regulation of the medical profession,
for example, involves an evaluation of the role of alternative medicine,
quackery, and scientific discipline. Ethical questions regarding the roles of
health and disease and life and death shape a society's views of the degree of
regulation necessary with regard to medical practice concerns. Like questions
are faced as the scope of medicine goes beyond the physical to include
psychiatry and psychology. Regulation often comes to grips with issues of
individual freedom and state concepts of the role and function of treatment and
therapy in the society.
In recent times, we have witnessed the development of criteria
relating to impermissible experimentation, both physical and mental, in order to
prevent ideologues from using medicine or psychiatry as a tool to shape members
of society to fit their dogma. Such abuses of power are directly akin to the
cultic excesses of totalitarian ideologues, whether religiously or politically
motivated.
Lawyers, too, have often been pressed into roles as
gladiators, carrying out the wishes of their clients without regard to their
responsibilities as quasi officers of the state, or, on the other hand, carrying
out the wishes of the state in order to suppress dissenters.
Boundaries of professional regulation by the state, therefore,
must also balance the protection of the society's core values and the ability of
the society to be flexible enough to adapt to new and dynamic times. Of course,
the elucidation of “core values” can itself be a contentious task, within as
well as across societies. This is why core values are probably presumed more
often than they are delineated. Within the United States, core values may be
illuminated by reviewing some of the founding documents of the nation (e.g., the
Bill of Rights) and fundamental legal concepts (e.g., contract obligations).
Some core values, however, may not appear in legal documents, but may be
affirmed in unwritten ethical rules of the culture (e.g., tolerance, respect of
another’s right to choose freely).
These values may manifest in various professional ethical
codes, which brings us to the second aspect of the relationship between the
state and the professions, namely, the regulation of particular members. Here,
as noted, both the state and the professions recognize the imbalance of power in
the relationships between professional and client and the consequent possibility
of abuse. Many professions adopt ethical codes, as much to bring this imbalance
to the attention of the professional as to protect the layperson. The existence
and operation of these codes needs examination, development, and extension to
other relationships where appropriate.
Together with these codes, however, regulation imposes a need
for implementation of the criteria of professionalism that justifies the state
cachet. We need a serious rethinking of the appropriate qualifications of those
claiming to be therapists, trainers, counselors, and advisers. Professions need
to be serious about exposing charlatans and those who seek to cultivate
dependency as a treatment vehicle. The cloak of authority, whether mystically
based or premised on secular authority, has often been used to hide abuse.
Exposure and inquiry are needed.
Conclusion
In each of the areas examined above, we have noted the
balancing process in which the state's view of its obligations and the role of
individuals in society may result in different approaches to the regulation of
cults, responses to abuses of power, and protection of individuals who are
harmed by cultic groups. Of course, even the definition of harm is affected by
the cultural values underpinning evaluations of the degree to which individual
freedom should or should not be restrained by the perception of state interests.
Neither the extreme of a wholly totalitarian society in which
all nonconformity is suppressed nor the extreme of absolute individual freedom
ever exists. The balancing line is drawn at different places in different
societies. Intervention and protection may vary across societies. Careful
scrutiny, however, is necessary in order to determine the degree to which a cult
or other group may abridge individual freedom, the degree to which its
activities may inflict unconsented-to harm on its victims, and the
appropriateness of state intervention and regulation aimed at ameliorating the
perceived harm. Without such scrutiny a society runs the risk of tolerating
behaviors that should not be tolerated or, conversely, suppressing behaviors
that should not be suppressed.
The process, then, should be one of shared scrutiny in which
dialogue may lead to mutual enlightenment and enlarged areas of agreement. This
approach is more useful than a simplistic, polarizing approach in which
recommended solutions are either to turn a blind eye to harm or to wipe out
nonconformity.
In this age of increasing global communication and the
exploding availability of information, both the harm done by cultic groups and
the reactions of society must be examined carefully. As we seek appropriate
solutions, we need to exchange information, be more precise in our evaluation of
the accuracy of the information, and recognize that concerns about bias and
prejudice do not invalidate information furnished by victims suffering
unconsented-to harm or by group participants themselves.
Part of the reason for the formation of societies is the
recognition of the need to protect the vulnerable and weak from the depredations
of the stronger. AFF hopes through its publications and conferences to
contribute to and encourage others to participate in the process of shared
scrutiny and respect for different views. No view should be above criticism,
and no disagreement should deny the value of dialogue.
|
