Religious Intolerance--not "Cults"--Is the Problem

by Catherine Wessinger

A T THE END OF JUNE 1994 Time  magazine came under criticism for altering O. J. Simpson's mug shot to make his skin appear darker and then using that altered photo on its cover. African Americans rightly pointed out that this Time   cover promoted racism by perpetuating the stereotype that dark-skinned men, particularly African-American men, commit violent crimes. Most people, however, do not realize that much of the news reporting on alternative religions perpetuates prejudice by labeling them "cults." Nor do most people realize that the current popular use of the word "cult" is pejorative and expresses religious prejudice. Racism is the belief that certain races are better than other races. Sexism is the belief that one sex is better than the other. Homophobia is heterosexual prejudice against gays and lesbians. These forms of prejudice are widely recognized. We need to realize that there is also religious prejudice, the belief that certain religions are legitimate and other religions are not. The recognition of all forms of prejudice is important, because prejudice dehumanizes the stigmatized group so that violence against its members becomes socially acceptable.

Many news reports and discussions of alternative religions are guilty of gross simplification and of spreading fear by lumping together many different types of religions and calling them "cults." Not uncommonly, very diverse groups such as the Branch Davidians, Jews for Jesus, Church Universal and Triumphant, the Unification Church (Moonies), the Hare Krishnas, Bible study circles, Ramtha devotees, meditation and yoga classes, UFO believers, and Santerí a initiates get branded with the label "cult." Persons affiliated with the anti-cult movement want us to believe that there are hundreds of cults (illegitimate religions) threatening to snatch up and brainwash unsuspecting young, middle-aged, and elderly persons. But the only thing these groups have in common is the prejudice directed against them by the wider public.

The theory of brainwashing that is advocated by the anti-cult movement has been rejected by the two academic and professional associations competent to evaluate the theory. The American Psychological Association and the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion reject the theory that a religious group can brainwash its members and reduce them to uncritical zombies. Further, the methods used by alternative religions are not significantly different from recruitment methods used by mainstream religions. Christian denominations send missionaries to non-Christian countries to convert people; Christian evangelists hold revivals so unconverted people can be "born again"; all Christian denominations instruct their children and young people in Sunday Schools, Bible schools, and catechism.

It has not been long ago that white Americans acting in mobs seized and lynched black men. No one today would justify mob execution without due process of the law. When the news media portray African Americans in a way that perpetuates racial stereotypes, nowadays, the African-American community is well organized and socially accepted enough to voice a protest that will be heard by white Americans.

But the unreasoning prejudice against religions that are perceived as not being mainstream is still not widely questioned. When the news media vilify a religious group and its leader, no one outside the group notices or cares. When unnecessary and dangerous force is used against a nonmainstream group, the prejudiced assumption is that they deserved what happened to them.

We know that prejudice motivates violence. Prejudice condoned the lynching of black men, saying that they got what they deserved. Prejudice against women condones and sanctions wife-beating as "a family matter." Where there is prejudice against women, a woman who has been raped will be judged and condemned more than her attacker. In cases of wife-beating or rape, prejudice says that the woman got what she deserved. Prejudice against religions condones unnecessarily aggressive actions against a group that results in deaths of innocent children, women, and men.

The word "cult," which formerly referred to an organized system of worship, is now a term that slanders any religion that you don't know about and don't like. The term "cult" is pejoratively applied to many different types of groups, and its use dehumanizes people, and thus sanctions violence against them, the way "nigger" dehumanized African Americans and sanctioned violence against them.

Without eliminating anyone's freedom of religion, it is fair for individuals to ask if a religion or worldview is healthy or not. In my opinion--and many people would disagree--any group that discourages intellectual inquiry, or encourages total obedience to an authority figure, or condones criminal activities, is probably not healthy. This is true for mainstream as well as nonmainstream groups. We know very well that child abuse, sexual abuse, abuse of authority, and coercing people to give money are found in socially accepted mainstream religions as well as in some nonmainstream groups. These problems need to be addressed in all their complexity. The answer is not in simplistically vilifying a religion and spreading religious prejudice based on inaccurate stereotypes.

The two separate government assaults in 1993 against the Branch Davidian community that resulted in over 80 deaths demonstrate that religious prejudice poses a greater danger to the lives of ordinary people than the alternative religions that are pejoratively termed "cults."

Table of Contents | Communities Magazine | Subscriptions |
| Intentional Communities |