English
中文Introduction
It is quite difficult to categorise religious groups as new religious movements (NRMs) as the use of the term has been met with some objections both within academic circles and within some groups who have been ‘labelled’ with that term (Coney, http://www.iskcon.com/icj/6_1/6_1coney.html). Introvigne (2001) observes that doctrinal and chronological issues come into play in designating certain religious groups as NRMs. From a doctrinal perspective, religious groups whose doctrinal basis depart from already established religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism and Buddhism have been termed as NRMs (Introvigne 2001). NRMs like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, The Family of God, Mormons, and the Unification Church are examples. From a chronological perspective, religious groups springing up especially in the 20th century have also been termed as NRMs, though some are of the view that groups springing up in the 19th century could also be termed as NRMs. NRMs are very diverse and highly proliferated globally. Examples are the International Society of Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) and Transcendental Meditation (TM). Barker (1999) thus argues that the only thing that NRMs “have in common is that they have been labelled as an NRM or ‘cult'” (p.20).
Though the term NRM has gained wide currency of usage and acceptance in academic circles, other older terms like ‘cults’ and ‘sects’, which are deemed derogatory, are still being used by some as alternate terms to NRMs. These terms have been viewed as even more pejorative as they have been employed by ‘anti-cult’ movements in Europe, the USA and other places for political ends (Coney, http://www.iskcon.com/icj/6_1/6_1coney.html). Richardson (1978) has for instance argued that the term cult became “a ‘rug’ under which were swept the troublesome and idiosyncratic religious experiences of mystics and other religious deviants” (p.29).
Opposition to NRMs
The phenomenon of the proliferation of NRMs in the Western world became significant from the period of the 1960s onwards with the establishment and popularisation of movements like ISKCON, TM, Zen Buddhism (Bruce 1996) and The Children of God. The opposition to the operations of NRMs or ‘cults’, is an offshoot of their proliferation in the 1960s and beyond.
Beckford (1999) is of the opinion that the very fact that many NRMs sprang up around the same time culminated in the perception that “a new ‘invasion of the body snatchers’ had occurred” (p.104). There were also suspicions raised against ‘foreign’ movements mostly from Asian origin and alarms about the success of these NRMs in recruiting young educated students of middle class backgrounds into their folds (Beckford 1999). Middle class families, whose children had become neophytes of these NRMs, had the money and the influence to challenge the activities of these NRMs. Consequently, focus on the family became one of the main motivations for the oppositions to NRMs. The American Family Foundation (AFF), an anti-cult movement, is perhaps the most notable family oriented response to the operation of NRMs ot ‘cults’. The AFF offers services ranging from telephone consultations and referrals, to publishing of its Cultic Studies Journals.
Opposition to NRMs may take a religious or secular form. From the Religious position, opposition to NRMs may arise as a result of these groups identifying with some established religions like Christianity, though the NRMs depart from some fundamental doctrines of the established religious order. Religious opposition is thus doctrinal in nature (Beckford 1999) and aims at opposing the doctrinal ‘deviation’ from its accepted norm. The counter-cult movement are mostly Christian evangelical in nature and Beckford (1999) has observed that they have not been very successful in their opposition to NRMs. NRMs like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons have fought back on the doctrinal plane against the counter-cult movements.
Opposition to NRMs or ‘cults’, have been staged on other fronts. Some opposition have been politically motivated by governments. Massimo Introvigne contends that governments are directly involved in the so called “European cult wars” and cites examples in France (in 1996) and Belgium (in 1997) where parliamentary reports based on information gathered by government intelligence agencies and ‘anti-cult’ movements were published (http://www.cesnur.org/testi/gandow_eng.htm). Constitutional issues freedom of worship, especially in Western states, arises in politically motivated censorship or opposition to NRMs. In the USA for example, the New York Leshner Bill (aimed at helping parents to remove adult children from cults) failed (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/cultsect/anticounter.htm).
Anti-cult movements perhaps form the most formidable opposition to NRMs and are normally organised along both religious and non-religious lines (Beckford 1999). Beckford (1999) observes that current anti-cult movements (ACM) are organised from a secular basis and are more effective than the counter-cult movements as they do not base their opposition to NRMs on theological or doctrinal issues. ACMs secularised the approach in opposing NRMs by using criticisms of exploitations and supposed illegalities in the operations of NRMs (Beckford 1999).
These criticisms and the secularisation of the ACM approach to NRMs effectively removes the targeted NRMs from the religious setting and places them within a secular milieu, as they are portrayed as organisations whose activities present economic, political and psychological anomalies within society (Beckford 1999). This also precipitates governmental involvement as NRMs that are targeted by ACMs are viewed as operating in a way that breaches the law. Thus “[S]tates regarding secularism as a value to be preserved at all costs will also continue to raise the flag of “dangerous sects” (France) or “evil cults” (China, Russia), in order to enact measures aimed at controlling conservative or “irrational” religion in general” (Introvigne 2001 http://www.cesnur.org/2001/mi_june03.htm).
The departure from the doctrinal based criticisms of NRMs by the ACM has also been effective in receiving a lot of media coverage. Claims of exploitations become newsworthy for a media that is ignorant of NRMs in general (Beckford 1999). This of course has been aided by such sensational occurrences in certain NRMs like the Jonestown mass suicide and the claims of suicide within the Great White Brotherhood in Ukraine in 1993 (Beckford 1999).
Another area that has been used by the ACM and with some degree of success has been the use of the state legal process to (especially in the USA) against some NRMs. Arguments of psychological impacts (brainwashing) on ‘victims’ of NRMs have been used against some NRMs in courts in the USA especially in the late 1970s (Dawson 2003). These early successes however began to wane as some NRMs also launched counter attacks using the legal process. Rick Ross (a cult ‘deprogrammer’), and the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) lost a court case for forcibly trying to deprogramme an adult member of the United Pentecostal Church International (http://www.cnn.com/US/9612/19/scientology/index.html). The damages awarded against CAN forced it into bankruptcy and its logo and assets have been purchased by a member of the Church of Scientology (an NRM) (http://www.cnn.com/US/9612/19/scientology/index.html). CAN is now operating under the direction of Scientology. Also, claims of brainwashing popularised by ACMs with support from have been met with a lot of scepticism especially from academic fields (Richardson 2003; Introvigne 2001).
Conclusion
From the above presentation, it can be concluded that opposition to NRMs have been partially effective. The persistence and thriving of NRMs also point to the fact
Introvigne (2001) has for instance argued that contrary to predictions of the decline of NRMs by the beginning of the 21st century, NRMs have thrived to some extent and even flourished in certain situations. Claims that secularisation would adversely affect the existence of religion in general and NRMs in particular have not happened as globally, more people claim to be religious and NRMs like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons have had very significant growths in membership (Introvigne 2001). The membership of Mormons globally for instance, is reported to be about 10 million (Introvigne 2001). Thus judging from such success stories one could argue that opposition to NRMs from groups like the ACMs have not been successful.
It must however be argued that the resort to violence by a few NRMs like the Jonestown mass suicide and the Order of the Solar Temple in Switzerland and Quebec in 1994 and in France in 1995 (Mayer 2003), present some basis for the scrutiny of the operations of NRMs. Opposers of NRMs like the ACM thus, may be said to play a ‘watchdog’ role as is evidenced in their contribution to the French and Belgian Parliamentary reports (presented above) on cults.
