Buduci da se u zadnje vrijeme pricalo puno gluposti o ovom pitanju,
malo sam prosvrljao po netu, i ovo mi se cini kao najpametniji clanak:
--------

Religious Liberty in Western Europe    
Massimo Introvigne 
This paper was presented at a conference in 
Torino, Washington, 1, December 1997. 

When in the United States it was suggested that religious liberty
should become an issue in foreign relations, immediate references were
made to Asian or African countries such as China, North Korea or
Sudan. Recently former Soviet bloc countries in Eastern Europe,
including Russia, have also been added to the list. Scholars of
minority religions, however, know that serious problems also exist in
some countries in Western Europe. In Europe some religious movements
certainly have perpetrated serious crimes, for example the suicides
and homicides of the Order of the Solar Temple in Switzerland in 1994
and in France in 1995 have caused widespread social concern. We
certainly do not suggest that religious movements guilty of common
crimes should not be vigorously prosecuted. However, the Solar Temple
incidents have been used as a catalyst in a number of countries to
propose actions against literally hundreds of groups thrown together
under the label of 'cult'. In the wake of the Solar Temple, a
dangerous ideology, hostile to religious minorities in general, seems
to have made inroads in political and administrative circles of
western European nations. In this paper I will examine these
developments from a scholarly perspective, arguing that these
developments will and have already damaged the rights of ordinary law
abiding citizens in certain countries, and that certain governments
need to seriously reconsider their policies towards religious minority
groups in light of the information presented in this paper. 

Part I will examine how this intolerant perspective has come about
with such prominence by examining the main tenets of this ideology.
Then we examine some details some of the results of the ideology in
Western Europe, mostly in the form of parliamentary commissions and
reports (Part II). After the examination of some examples (Part III),
some final suggestions are offered (Part IV). It is important that
while the European Parliament prepares to vote its own resolution on
'cults', an international dialogue on religious minorities takes place
involving all parties concerned, including those who care about
religious liberty. 

 Part I. The Rise of an Intolerant World-view 

Redefining 'Religion
In present-day Western Europe few would admit to being against
religious liberty, and this list would certainly not include
governments or parliamentary commissions. However, in recent times
discrimination against unpopular groups has been allowed to take place
by redefining the notion of 'religion'. While most scholars favour a
broad definition of religion (for example, as a system of answers to
the basic human questions about the origins and destiny of humans),
institutional definitions by political and judicial sectors are often
result-oriented. For instance, a decision rendered by the Court of
Appeal in Milan, Italy, on 2, December 1996, in order to deny the
Church of Scientology the status of a religion, defined religion as 'a
system of doctrines centred on the presupposition of the existence of
a Supreme Being, who has a relation with humans, the latter having
towards him a duty of obedience and reverence'. On 8, October 1997 the
Italian Supreme Court annulled this Milan decision made in 1996,
castigating its theistic definition of religion as 'unacceptable' and
a 'mistake', because it is 'based only on the paradigm of biblical
religions' and would exclude a number of mainline religions, including
Buddhism. It is true that theologians, sociologists and historians
have proposed different definitions of religion. It is, however,
difficult to avoid the impression that in some European countries
today, the selection of a set of criteria among the many that are
available are governed primarily by whether an organisation deserves
protection or punishment. Only broad definitions of religion appear to
be consistent with the aims of religious liberty embodied in a number
of national constitutions, international declarations and conventions.

The myth of brainwashing and mind control
One of the older, more established and most effective rhetorical tools
used to claim that a religious group is not 'genuine', is by the claim
that they do not have voluntary membership. Anti-Mormon propagandist,
Maria Ward, claimed in 1855 that Mormon conversions were obtained only
through '. . . a mystical magical influence . . . a sort of sorcery
that deprived me of the unrestricted exercise of free will.' 1 In
fact, Ward argued, Mormons used the secret of 'mesmerism' taught to
their founder, Joseph Smith, by 'a German peddler'. The reference to
'magical influence', 'sorcery' and a non-existing German Mesmerist
allowed anti-Mormons such as Ward to deny Mormonism the status of
religion. Since religion is, by rhetorical definition, an exercise of
free will, a non-religion may only be joined under some sort of
coercion. 

The same hypnotic paradigm has been applied, more recently, in order
to distinguish between 'religions', joined voluntarily, and 'cults',
joined only because of what was once called brainwashing (which has
now been renamed as mind control, mental manipulation or mental
destabilisation, since the label has been discredited by mental health
scholars). 

In the United States, theories of brainwashing and mind control
applied to religious minorities have been debunked for at least ten
years. The American Psychological Association (APA) in 1984 allowed
Margaret Singer, the main proponent of anti-cult mind control
theories, to create a working group called Task Force on Deceptive and
Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC). In 1987 the final
report of the DIMPAC Committee was submitted to the Board of Social
and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology of the APA. On 11, May 1987
the Board rejected the report and concluded that the mind control
theories used in order to distinguish 'cults' from religions are not
part of accepted psychological science. The results of this document
were devastating for the validation of mind control theorists. 

American courts have consistently rejected testimonies about mind
control and manipulation since the Fishman case in 1990. In this case
a defendant accused of commercial fraud claimed as his defence that he
was not fully responsible, since he was under the mind control of
Scientology. The court stated that mind control theories are not part
of accepted mainline science. Brainwashing and mind control theories
are, indeed, not part of psychological or social science. They lack
empirical evidence, and are a mere tool used in order to deny the
status of religion to groups perceived as deviant or subversive. 

These American developments, on the other hand, are not well known in
western Europe. Although with different nuances, and dismissing the
word 'brainwashing' as inadequate and old-fashioned, even official
documents by parliamentary commissions rely on the faulty model
distinguishing between religions and 'cults' on the basis of
manipulation and mind control. 

Apostates
Mind control theories are part of a rejected knowledge consistently
repudiated by the academia, professional associations and courts of
law. It is, however, argued that scholarly objections are less
relevant than the 'testimony' of 'former members' who claim that
'cults' are indeed joined because of manipulation and mind control. It
is unclear why the accounts of one or another 'former member' should
be accepted by official political bodies, including parliamentary
commissions, as more relevant by definition than scholarly research.
Additionally, a misunderstanding about the very notion of 'former
members' is perpetuated, and plays a key role in the public
stigmatisation of minority religious movements. While parliamentary
reports and sensationalised media accounts claim to rely on the
'testimony of former members', we learn invariably that, for each
religious movement, only a very limited number of 'former members'
have been heard by the parliamentary commissions, the courts or the
press. 

Sociological research suggests that among thousands of former members
of any large organisation (no matter how controversial) only a small
minority become 'apostates' (a technical, not a derogatory term). Not
all former members are apostates. An apostate is a former member who
reverses loyalties dramatically and becomes a professional enemy of
the organisation he or she has left. Most former members do not become
apostates. They remain-in sociological terms suggested by David
Bromley and others-'defectors', members who somewhat regret having
left an organisation they still perceive in largely positive terms, or
'ordinary leave-takers' with mixed feelings about their former
affiliation. However, ordinary leave-takers (and, to some extent,
defectors) remain socially invisible in so far as they do not like or
care to discuss their former affiliation. Apostates, being more
visible, are mistaken for the genuine representatives of the former
members. In fact, quantitative research shows that even in extremely
controversial groups, apostates normally represent less than 15% of
former members. 

Anti-cult movements
If apostates are only a minority of former members, it begs the
question why they are so often the only ones interviewed by
parliamentary commissions or the media? The logical answer is that
they either volunteer to be heard, or are directed to testify by an
oppositional coalition. This is, in fact, the role of the so-called
anti-cult movement. Modern anti-cult movements (in opposition to older
Christian counter-cult coalitions) are defined as primarily secular
organisations fighting 'cults' based on the brainwashing or mind
control paradigm. The recent lack of institutional and academic
support for mind control theories has caused a serious crisis for the
American anti-cult movement. In 1996 the largest American anti-cult
organisation, the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), filed for bankruptcy.
An anti-cult movement, however, does continue to exist in the United
States and in fact, claims that its accounts, although rejected by
scholars, are validated by 'former members' (namely apostates). 

Currently in Western Europe anti-cult movements (particularly ADFI in
France, whose offices also serve as European headquarters for FECRIS,
a Europe-wide federation of anti-cult movements) experience a degree
of institutional support unknown in the United States. These well
organised anti-cult movements-particularly in France, Germany and
Belgium- have successfully introduced the mind control model to the
press and to political bodies unfamiliar with the fact that this model
has been discredited in the United States. When scholarly criticism of
the mind control model is opposed to the anti-cult movements, it is
dismissed on the basis of the testimony of 'former members'. In some
countries, including France, anti-cult movements have considerable
resources and operate with the help of taxpayers' money. They are
responsible for spreading misleading information about a number of
religious minorities. 

The anti-cult organisation is usually not composed of scholars and
they offer information-perhaps in good faith-that is simply not
updated. Unfortunately, the consequences may be catastrophic. To
mention only a few examples, in the early 1990s the international
anti-cult coalition instigated police raids in a number of countries
against The Family (formerly known as the Children of God), based on
practices The Family had in fact discontinued for a number of years.
Based on this false information, children were separated from their
mothers, and adults as well as the children were taken into custody
(inter alia in France and Spain) for weeks and even for months. Later,
courts dismissed the charges, recognising that the information was
either inaccurate or not updated, and castigated the anti-cultists. In
Barcelona, Spain, Judge Adolfo Fernando Oubina in his decision of 22,
May 1992 went so far to compare the actions against The Family to 'the
Inquisition' and 'the concentration camps'. The legal decisions,
although important, does not compensate the adults and the children
for what was an unnecessary nightmare. 

Another example of how inaccurate, dated information may easily
mislead authorities concerns Tabitha's Place, the French branch of the
Messianic Communities (a communal group originating from the Jesus
Movement and headquartered in Island Pond, Vermont). The mother
community in Vermont, the Northeast Kingdom Community Church, was
raided in 1984, based on rumours of child abuse spread by local
anti-cultists. However, no evidence of child abuse was found and the
case was dismissed. By 1994, the Vermont community, although
maintaining a strict Christian fundamentalist lifestyle, enjoyed a
peaceful coexistence with neighbours and authorities. Unaware that
similar charges were dismissed in the USA ten years earlier, the
anti-cult movement in south-western France started a campaign against
Tabitha's Place (a community that, in turn, had existed peacefully
near Pau for more than ten years with no incidents). Charges of child
abuse were carelessly repeated and the community, continuously
harassed by police and tax authorities, struggled for its very
existence. 

In April 1997 a twelve-month child died of congenital heart problems.
The parents were arrested for possible abuse, although a team of
twelve doctors who examined the community's children concluded that
there is no evidence of any abuse. It is possible that the infant's
parents were not fully aware of the possibilities of surgery. However,
the criminal case against them is being prosecuted within the frame of
a general climate poisoned by rumours spread by anti-cultists on the
basis of claims raised and dismissed in the US over a decade before
the French situation. They also rely on the testimony of only one
apostate, who spent just a few days at Tabitha's Place.2 

Part II. The Results 

In the United States the Jonestown tragedy of 1978 was the catalyst
for an increase of anti-cult activity. The anti-cult worldview
(described in Part I above) became widespread, but the activities of
the anti-cult movement were ultimately kept in jeopardy by the
reactions of the academia, mainline Churches and some of the religious
minorities themselves. In Europe, as mentioned earlier, the
suicide-homicides of the Order of the Solar Temple, repeated twice in
the 1994 and 1995 (and a third time in 1997-but only in Quebec)
enacted the same role Jonestown played in the United States. The
anti-cult movements were energised and authorities started considering
them more seriously. Discredited theories such as mind control
surfaced again. Parliamentary commissions with a mandate to study the
'danger of cults' were established in a number of countries. Without
examining all the results of this activity, here are some relevant
examples. 

France
After a number of secret hearings a parliamentary commission, composed
solely of members of Parliament, issued a report entitled 'Cults in
France' (10, January 1996). It is important to note that not a single
scholar was consulted in the whole process; their expertise would be
vital in producing an objective picture of the real danger of the
groups in question. It included a laundry list of 172 dangerous cults.
It did not recommend new legislation, but suggested a number of
administrative actions and the establishment of a national Observatory
of Cults (in fact established in 1996, with only two extreme
anti-cultists as 'experts'). 

Although not technically a source of law, the report has already been
quoted in court decisions and has led to discrimination against a
number of groups. Teachers have been fired from public schools after
years of honourable service only because they were members of the
Jehovah's Witnesses, one of the most dangerous 'cults' according to
the report. A Roman Catholic theatrical group, the Office Cultural de
Cluny, included in the report as a 'dangerous cult' against letters of
protest of a number of French Catholic