Releasing the Bonds" by Steven Hassan | Cults

( 1 Vote )

Written by Steven Hassan

Sunday, 25 January 2009 00:04

Portion from Steven Hassan's second book, Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves (FOM Press, 2000) Chapter 7

Understanding Cult Beliefs and Tactics

DISTINGUISH INFORMATION FROM DISINFORMATION

To find the truth, you have to be able to distinguish between reliable information and misleading disinformation. This skill is especially important when seeking information about destructive cults, because one way a cult defends itself is by spreading lies and blurring the line between fact and fiction. By the late 1970s, the question of cult mind control was intertwined in the public eye with the issue of forcible deprogramming. This was partly due to a multi-million dollar public relations campaign financed by the major cults in an attempt to smear critics and divert the debate from the cults themselves. This was also due to the fact that deprogrammers were, in many cases, acting like vigilantes. In the propaganda campaign, cults have labeled deprogramming ³the greatest threat to religious liberty. In cult lectures, booklets, and pamphlets, and on cult Web sites, deprogrammers are portrayed as money-hungry thugs who tie their victims to chairs, beating and raping them until they recant their religious beliefs.

The Cult Awareness Network changes hands

The Cult Awareness Network (CAN), the largest grassroots organization for families with loved ones in cults, was falsely portrayed by the cults as a group of fascists who wanted to deprive people of religious freedom. In 1994, CAN lost one of scores of harassment law suits filed by cult members across the country, and the $1.875 million jury verdict sent the organization into bankruptcy court. Ultimately, CAN¹s trade name, post office box number, help line phone number, and service mark were sold at auction for $20,000 to Steven Hayes, a member of the Church of Scientology. CAN is now part of the problem. The wolf is wearing Grandma¹s clothes. If you call the CAN number today, most likely a cult member will answer, although that person will not reveal his cult affiliation. Any information offered by family members could be used against them in their efforts to liberate their loved one. The CAN Web site (cultawarenessnetwork.org) says it is operated by the Foundation for Religious Freedom and denies that mind control exists. The CAN site offers up a confusing mix of truths, half-truths and lies and attempts to equate anti-cult with 'anti-religious'. When a cult member visits the CAN site, cult-instilled phobias of anti-religious deprogrammers are reinforced. There are many other web sites being created to bolster cult groups¹ agendas to recruit and indoctrinate people around the world.

One of the most common disinformation tactics used by cults is a logical fallacy known as the straw man, where a person weakens his opponent's position by misrepresenting his arguments and attacking an indefensible straw man, rather than addressing the real issues. For example, cults frequently create a false image of mind control as a mystical force that can overpower any person in any situation. Naturally, this all-or-nothing straw man is easier to knock over than the actual positions taken by informed, experienced professionals and effectiveness, and that while mind control is never absolute, it can nevertheless have devastating consequences.

I question the motives of any individual or group that takes the extreme position at under no circumstances can people be manipulated into adopting new beliefs. Whose interests are advanced by the notion that mind control is entirely implausible? If mind control is nothing but a hoax, why does professor and former Western Psychological Association President Philip Zimbardo teach a course at Stanford University called The Psychology of Mind Control?

Cult propagandists love to try to convince members that mind control is not recognized by mental health professionals. One simple retort is to cite the DSM-IV, American Psychiatric Association¹s diagnostic manual that specifically mentions cults and brainwashing under 300.15, Dissociative Disorder NOS. Of course, you can also cite the favorable reviews of Combatting Cult Mind Control in The Lancet and The American Journal of Psychiatry in 1990. Another tactic cult public relations people like is to misquote legal decisions involving cults. When talking with your loved ones, ask them for the case, citation, and even better, the official ruling. When it comes to legal decisions, it is best to ask a lawyer familiar with cult-related litigation to help you get the documents to show and explain to the cult member.

Cult Defenders

In addition to cult propaganda, disinformation is being spread by cult members themselves, as well as by cult defenders religious freedom as a justification for the existence of mind control groups. Some high-profile researchers have accepted funds or other perks from the cults they were studying. For instance, The Washington Post reported that Aum Shinrikyo paid the airfare, lodging, and other 'basic expenses'of four Americans who came to the defense of the cult when Japanese police began investigating a 1994 poison gas attack on the Tokyo subways.

One of these Americans was J. Gordon Melton who writes books and articles on 'new' religions and who has a history of defending controversial groups such as Jim Jones' People's Temple. When questioned in 1988 about the Jim Jones group, Melton said, 'This wasn¹t a cult. This was a respectable, mainline Christian group.' Melton also appears on the Cult Awareness Network's online list of ³Professional Referrals. In a recent issue of Nova Religio, Benjamin Zablocki, a Rutgers professor, and thirty-year cult scholar, exposed how cult funding often creates bias in studies of controversial groups.

Cult defenders confuse the public by promoting a primitive, robotic conception of mind control. They also proffer an erroneous picture of the viewpoints of both cult critics and ex-members. A popular argument among cult defenders is that the testimony of former members, or ³apostates,² should not be considered reliable, because such people may have been prejudiced by their departure from the group. According to Melton, ³hostile ex-members invariably shade the truth. They invariably blow out of proportion minor incidents and turn them into major incidents.²17 Ironically, cult defenders appear to ignore the possibility that the testimony of cult members and leaders might be partisan.

The demonization of cult critics

When Combatting Cult Mind Control was first published in 1988, I became one of the most visible targets of cult disinformation campaigns. There are cult leaders who lecture their members on the evils of speaking with me and even reading the book. Scientology has a 'Dead Agent Pack' about me. This folder contains material designed to assassinate my character a respected person. Countless times, I've been threatened with lawsuits and have even received death threats from cult members. Several groups, such as the Moonies, tell their members that I am Satan's agent. Specific phobias about me have been planted in members' minds. Cult members are indoctrinated to believe that Steven Hassan is a 'deprogrammer' who endorses and associates with people who kidnap, beat, and torture members of new religions until they renounce their faith in God. Cult web sites portray me as an evil, anti-religious bigot who is out to destroy religious freedom.

When a cult member raises such an accusation about any cult critic, I recommend that the family ask for proof: 'Show us the evidence. Have your leaders documented the charges with names, dates, and places? Were any charges filed?' The leaders of the group will not want their accusations examined or challenged. Family members and friends should ask to speak with the individuals who purportedly wrote negative affidavits. Questions can be asked, and facts can be communicated. The deprogrammingphobia can be dismantled piece by piece, exposing the lies and deception. This is a vital and effective strategy to promote reality testing.

Father: I'm looking at the cult Web site, and there are pages that criticize Dr. Robert Lifton, Dr. Louis West and Dr. Margaret Singer. What is this all about? How can we judge if this information is harmful or helpful? When evaluating any piece of information, ask yourself:

What is the source of the criticism?
How is the source funded?
Who, exactly, is making the accusations?
What are this person¹s verifiable credentials?
What is his standing in the academic and scientific community?
What is his training? His experience? His reputation?
What has this person published?
Have you read his work?
Does what he or she says make sense to you?
When you question him, does he answer honestly and responsibly?

I have known Dr. Lifton, the late Dr. West, and Dr. Singer for many years. While I don¹t agree with everything they have written or done, I have great respect for their positive contributions to humankind, which have been substantial.18 They were all United States military intelligence officers who studied Chinese ³brainwashing² in the 1950¹s, and all were brave enough to publicly attest that such a phenomenon exists. Read the information and disinformation for yourself about these individuals. Form your own opinion. We Americans tend not to realize that our Constitutional rights mean nothing unless we are willing to stand up and affirmatively assert them. Cults force many of us to act because they have shown a willingness to deprive people of their rights. Speaking personally, I refuse to surrender my rights. The stories of abuse, betrayal, harassment, intimidation, fear, broken families, neglected children, financial ruin, and personal and emotional devastation that I¹ve heard from so many ex-members over the years impels and inspires me in that struggle. I believe one of the most effective strategies to counter the disinformation and slander is to help ex-members tell their story, and I encourage former members reading this book to do so for their own good as well as the good of others. I also advise those with loved onesin a cult to seek out ex-members with stories to tell.

Do I believe every ex-member's story without seeking verification? No, of course not. Is it possible that some ex-members exaggerate their stories? Of course. Believing that all ex-members are credible or that no ex-member is credible is too extreme. I seek to evaluate each person¹s story and obtain verification. Naturally, when there are many people telling of similar experiences with a particular group, the information usually proves to be trustworthy. Most ex-members speak out at great personal risk and with little or no personal gain, other than the therapeutic effects of standing up to expose an injustice, and perhaps to help others.

Former cult members and their friends and family are survivors, and their testimony is powerful evidence that a person can walk away from a destructive group and go on to a lead a contented, productive life. Hearing their supportive and inspiring words can help set a confused, discontented cult member on the road to becoming a healthier, more fulfilled ex-member. By putting a face to the other side of the story, former members show your loved one that leaving is an option. Once this becomes a viable choice, it is usually only a matter of time before the person decides to leave the group.

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry