|
Cultic Studies Journal
|
The
Council of Europe's Report on Sects and New Religious Movements
|
|
Psychological
Manipulation and Society: cults, cult groups, new religious movements
|
Cultic Studies Journal
Psychological Manipulation and Society
Vol. 9, No. 1, 1992
6/8
The
Council of Europe's Report on Sects and New Religious Movements
Mr. de Puig (Spain) (Rapporteur of the
Committee on Culture and Education) presented the opinion of the Committee on Culture and
Education on sects and new religious movements (Doc. 6546). He said that many of the
activities of these sects were completely unacceptable. His committee had studied the
reports from Sir John Hunt's committee very carefully. There was a difficult choice to
make between trying to prevent sects having a negative effect on individuals and society
and the defense of religious freedom.
Although it would be extremely difficult and might not be
desirable to outlaw sects, many of their activities were simply criminal and could be
combated by the existing forces of law and order. Examples of crimes perpetrated by sects
were brainwashing, economic exploitation, and enslavement of their members. The Committee
on Culture and Education endorsed the report, but proposed amendments to take stock of the
cultural, as well as the legal, perspective.
Mr. Worms (France) said that he wished to put
on record his total support for the report. It was an admirably objective document. The
religious and secular aspects of society needed to be kept clearly apart. All religions
should advocate respect for human rights.
Mr. Muller (Germany) said that recent decades
had witnessed a decline of religious values in the West whilst Islamic fundamentalism had
gone from strength to strength. The traditional churches in Europe had failed their
congregations by ignoring basic moral issues. Instead, worship in churches more often
resembled sociology seminars. Religious houses had allowed themselves to become
politicized. Parents had not offered true guidance to their children who were therefore
obliged to turn to avant-garde religious sects for spiritual nourishment. Those bodies
destroyed individualism and substituted indoctrination for teaching. Young people needed
access to factual and unbiased information when dealing with religious groups. Groups
which had hitherto promoted Marxist beliefs had moved into the realm of esoteric religious
creeds. There were worrying signs of a growth in unorthodox religious practices. In
Germany evidence had been found of mutilated animal corpses, the aftermath of Black
Masses.
Mr. Stoffelen (Netherlands) congratulated the
Rapporteurs for their excellent work. Freedom of religious choice was a basic human right
enshrined in Article 9 of the Convention of Human Rights. There was a danger of condemning
out of hand emerging religious movements, and labeling them with such pejorative epithets
as "sects." Nevertheless, the Church should operate within the law.
Mr. Rowe (United Kingdom): Thank you, Mr.
President. I am particularly pleased to follow my friend Peter Stoffelen on this matter. I
entirely agree with much of what he said although I wonder whether I would draw the line
between what is acceptable and what is not in quite the same place.
The problem with the subject so excellently covered by Sir
John's report is that, by definition, it is "my church" and "your
sect." We tend to judge others by a different standard from that which we apply to
ourselves. One general rule for people considering this matter is to ask whether the
founders or gurus
of a sect are rich. If they are, it is almost certainly unsound. One of the striking
features of the religions that have endured is that their founders were poor and had
sympathy with the poor.
The problem which the committee was asked to consider is
consumer-led. Or perhaps it is even more a problem of the consumer's family. Families
become anxious when one of their members gets caught up in some sect of which they
disapprove. As the report says: "While a religion implies free, informed consent on
the part of those who join it, people joining certain sects may be free when they join it,
but are not informed, and, once they are informed, they are usually no longer free."
That is an important point.
As all the speakers so far have said, the public law must
be the principal touchstone. Human rights legislation is meaningless if it does not
prevent exploitation, whether of sect members or sect staff. Being a member of a sect
cannot of itself be an excuse for lawbreaking without being subject to the consequences of
that lawbreaking.
There is always a possible conflict between human rights
and the rights of the family and the individual. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves
that Christ himself said: "I have come to set a man against his father and a daughter
against her mother and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law and a man's foes will
be those of his own household." However one interprets that, it is clear that those
who find a focus for their loyalty outside the family will not always be particularly
popular with the family, and we should be erring if we made it too easy for families to
impose their particular form of obligation on family members who have taken an open
decision not to conform.
Therefore, another touchstone must be openness rather than
stealth. The report is right about that. We should know as much as possible. Those whose
deeds are evil love the dark. Sects which are not prepared to come out into the open are
judged as highly suspect by their own action. Therefore, I welcome the report's emphasis
on information.
I am worried about registration. The report itself said
that the committee did not seek evidence from some sects because it was concerned that in
so doing it might give the authority of the Council of Europe to those sects. Demanding
registration would put the committee into exactly that difficulty again.
The protection against exploitation or empty sectarianism
must be the development of our spiritual dimension. Mr. Muller was right. Lech Walesa
yesterday, Irina Ratuschinskaya frequently, and many others have pointed to the spiritual
barrenness of our capitalist society. That has particularly struck those whose fate has
provided them with the tools to break down the communist empire.
We do not develop our justification for our currently
successful ideology. The glacial ice that froze so much in Eastern Europe has frozen the
argument in Western Europe and we are in danger of resting our defense of democratic
capitalism mainly on its material success. This, which is barren in itself, requires
continuing growth and material advance for its credibility and by itself it will fail.
In coming years, we must address the inequalities inside
and outside our continent. We must wrestle with environmental destruction, huge population
flows, international water shortage, the rapid increase in the deprived urban underclass,
and with many other global hazards. If we cannot develop our spiritual philosophy to meet
the hunger of the millions who look for a solid foundation on which to stand, we shall be
borne away on the tide of racism, nationalism, or even religious strife.
Mr. Espersen (Denmark): I see from the report
that this question was referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights in
1987. That shows how difficult the problem is and that it is very difficult to solve. Many
varied considerations have been made and many wise thoughts have been expressed. Many
solutions have also been attempted, but on behalf of the Danish delegation, I must say
that we do not believe that legislation can solve the problem. Information and education
are good roads on which to embark, but there should not be specific legislation.
The Church of Scientology has been given as an example of a
sect. That shows the difficulty of defining a sect. I do not believe that it is a sect
because, even if we consider the definitions referred to by Sir John Hunt, the Church of
Scientology does not fall within those definitions. It is not based on any kind of
religion. It does not work in a spiritual field.
It works in a field, but not a spiritual one. It has no
mystical basis. It is a cool, cynical, manipulating business and nothing else.
As the Church of
Scientology falls without the definition of a sect, it would not fall within
the legislation for which we are asking. Therefore, a dangerous association would not be
touched by the legislation. The problem is very big and we believe that, unfortunately, it
is impossible to find legislation to cover it.
Some sects, like the Church of Scientology to which I have
referred, abuse young people and use people with various problems such as drug problems or
mental problems. They abuse such people, but call themselves sects and act as though they
are based on religion. However, they are based simply on the desire to make money. I am
afraid that we cannot get rid of such associations with specific legislation on religious
sects.
Fraud and sexual abuse are already punishable in all our
countries. Gross abuse of weaknesses is also punishable. We believe that we should ensure
that our authorities use those laws, which are not used to the extent to which they should
be used. The sects I would like to see disappear should not fall within specific
legislation of a religious nature. Most of them already fall under the penal code, which
should be used against them. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. Moya (Spain) welcomed the consensus in
the debate. The problems posed by sects were genuine and increasing, but they were also
complex. The report was right to discuss social preventive measures as well as legal
solutions, and to draw attention to the individual's right to freedom, but also to the
undesirable consequences of exercising that freedom. The approach of the report had been
balanced and nonsectarian and he welcomed it.
Mr. de Puig (Spain) (Rapporteur of the
Committee on Culture and Education) thanked the participants in the debate, all of whom
had supported the report. He said that the lesson he had drawn from the debate was that it
was very difficult to deal with the problem of sects, as in many cases they were abusing
existing freedoms which were guaranteed by law, but were not actually breaking the law.
The problem needed to be looked at from the point of view of respect for human rights.
The problems raised by sects could not be solved by
intolerance. In that context, it was encouraging to know that a committee of the Assembly
was looking at the problem of religious tolerance, and would be holding a symposium on
that subject in Jerusalem the following month.
Sir John Hunt (United Kingdom) (Rapporteur of
the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights): We have had a brief but very useful
debate. I am most grateful to all those who have spoken. I thank Mr. de Puig for what he
has just said, for his personal support, and for the support of his committee. Of course,
Spain has set an example to many other countries in Europe on ways in which to tackle the
growing problems of sects and cults.
Two speakers, Mr. Worms and Mr. Moya, said that it was
difficult to find the right balance, but I am glad that they feel we have got it about
right in the report. Mr. Muller picked up the point in my report about the decline of
traditional churches and classical religion. He said quite rightly that many cults have
come into being to meet the craving among young people for new dependencies, but he went
on also rightly to say that, having met that craving, they then proceed in many cases to
abuse it. That led him to the conclusion, which I certainly endorse, that the state must
supervise the activities of those groups -- hence my recommendation for a register.
Mr. Stoffelen spoke about the freedom of religion and
tolerance, which I wholly endorse, and the right to choose. Of course, we all support
that. We also have the right to choose our doctor. When we do so, however, we expect the
government to ensure that that person is not a bogus practitioner. In that sense, there
must be some supervision. I assure Mr. Stoffelen that there is absolutely no question of a
witch-hunt against those groups. All that we are seeking is to ensure that bad practices
are exposed and publicized so that the public in general, and young people and parents in
particular, can be warned about them.
|