Should the Government Constrain Cults?
I am entirely against government bans on “cults.” Such a ban would be an instrument for public administrators trying to control undesirable social and cultural values. In all likelihood this law would be used in a discriminatory fashion, to go after politically incorrect Christians far more than to restrict orgiastic sun worshippers in Arizona or the sacrificers of screaming chickens in a Florida resort town. In any case ordinances against public disturbances already exist to cover these situations. And if we don’t like the idea of filling the country with disturbing exotic sects, then we can always restrict immigration. It is better to think twice about letting in Rastafarians than it is to curtail the religious freedom of those who are already here.
When I taught a class on community and the individual for our now abandoned Junior-Senior Colloquium program, many of my students were eager to give reports on cults. These students obviously believed from reading about the subject that “cults” include Bible-believing Protestants, who accept the authority of Scripture. Since most of my students were at least nominally Catholic, they did not consider their own church to be a “cult.” But they also harbored the belief that Catholicism avoided being a “cult” because it imposed upon its adherents no other moral teaching than “to be nice.” Presumably this command did not extend to those who were “judgmental” in any traditional sense. People who represent such progressive social attitudes rather than mine, will likely be called on to decide what exactly a “cult” is.
Another example may illustrate my point. The current black Democratic candidate for the presidency, Senator Obama of Illinois, belongs to a black church in Chicago that is openly and emphatically hostile to my race (and to Obama’s white mother). As far as I can tell, the other presidential candidates are trying not to notice that Obama’s congregation features a platform that is full of references to the African race and to its sacred ethnic integrity. Although this Chicago-based congregation looks like a collection of African racial mystics posing as Christians, I suspect that no law passed to ban “cults” would affect it in our PC society. But if a white racist church were to preach the same exclusionary principle for whites, one could imagine the likely consequence. If there were a law against cults, it would then be applied to go after the white counterpart of Obama’s church.
I should also point out that the Religious Right, which in the past has favored restrictions on cults, mistakenly believes that the government can be made to do its will in this particular matter. My answer to those who labor under this illusion is this: The government will do here what it normally does in the cultural sphere, which is to have liberal social engineers determine the guidelines for sensitive views. American traditionalists should note the folly of “conservative” intellectuals in Germany in the sixties and seventies, who egged on German bureaucrats against the “enemies of the constitutional democratic order.” By the late seventies, the political and media Left had taken over in Germany, and ever since it has been using the legal forms that the Center-Right established or strengthened to settle scores. Why does our Religious Right believe that something else will happen here if it gets to outlaw “cults”? Another group I have heard asking for such a ban is desperate Jewish parents, whose kids have become “Jews for Jesus.” This may cause communal or inter-communal problems, but is certainly not a good reason to ask the government to intimidate a rival religion. Such a proposal is particularly indefensible coming from those who have suffered from government oppression in the past.
A last group that has asked for such a ban is the relatives of those who have joined the World Unification Church led by the Reverend Sun Yung Moon. Here the demand seems obsolete, since the organization has a dwindling number of non-Asian members. And even when the Unification Church still had a few thousand American and European converts, it is hard to show that these members were being grossly und involuntarily abused. They were adults who chose to belong to a church that taught redemption through a Korean savior. If they wished to believe this and to work for Unificationist-owned newspapers for a pittance, then that was their decision to make. The same would apply to those who give their money to Scientology. If John Travolta and Tom Cruise are happy with their choice of charities, it is not my money that they’re giving away. Nor do I want the federal government to provide them or me with instructions about which religions may receive our untaxed earnings. This would be a direct violation of the First Amendment’s protection of religion from the reach of the federal government.
Comments
I certainly agree with Mr. Gottfried on the undesirability of outlawing “cults”, but I was not aware this was a big issue. I try to avoid even using the word, since “cult” has come to mean little more than a religion that the speaker doesn’t like. But if Obama really belongs to a church which is racially hostile to non-blacks, this needs to be explored openly and he should be questioned on his own views. The fact that there is no religious test in the constitution does not mean that people should ignore a candidate’s religious beliefs. Romney is getting a lot of questions on his Mormon beliefs and rightly so.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Interesting.Lets look at the pride and prejudice.The black communities is in constance attack on the family The gloriousness of sin promoted in the U.S. attacks the black family destruction. Does Obama church believe in Christ divinity? Many liberals will say Christ was a great man,but not the Son of God.I am sure that Obama will be ask his position on most subject matter, but the viewing T.V. audience will get the picture the Mass Media wants them to have. I truly enjoy my internet media.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Is Deism a cult? Many of the fellows that invented our governmental system that morphed into something that would apall them, were derisive of the common judeo-christian mystical beliefs. Their declaration that the clockbuilding god could no longer have any more miracles up his sleeve seems a bit illogical to me but I am sure all of us could see them as Cultists. I will listen to their advice on mixing the religious with the political. Scoundrels use both and a “Waco” of murder and destruction is usually the result.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It seems to me that another related issue regarding religious “cults” is freedom of association. I consider myself a “fundamentalist” Christian. In my association with “like-minded” fellow believers, I would resent any “federal” intrusion with my church. I know this sounds like a cliche, but I am willing to ultimately submit to God’s judgement regarding our doctrines and practices, including our right to exclude from membership individuals that violate the commands of scripture, which I believe is a “higher” authority. Others are free to disagree, just as I and those like myself should be free to agree with the principles of scripture. At the same time, I also am aware that I am commanded to love my enemies. I wonder if Obama’s church could even consider or teach that principle.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
As a memmber of a UCC Church, and a white man, who has attended worship
services at Trinity UCC (Obama’s Church), I can state that they definitely are not hostile to white people. In fact the entire congregation goes out of the way to make you fell welcome.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Paul, does love your enemies include Iraq’s?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Gale, on the authority of my old daddy,
you should love your enemies, although
only after they are hung.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
As Robert Heinlein said, a church is anything that calls itself a church. The federal government has no authority, no right, and no business to determine what is and is not a church/ valid religion. One of the principles of this country is the right to worship however you choose, whether you worship Jesus, the moon and sun, or your dog. It doesn’t matter; it is no one’s business but your own. As long as an individual’s religious practices do not interfere with the rights of someone else, then it is irrelevant what religion said individual practices and in what way. You don’t have to like that fact, but you do have to live with it. “Freedom of religion” means _any_ religion, even the ones that are unpopular or non-mainstream or “orgiastic sun-worshippers in Arizona.” In the eyes of the law, Wicca, Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. are equivalent; religion under the law is a null area—and should remain so. Allowing the government any latitude to decide what is or is not religion can only end in tragedy; do Salem and Waco ring any bells?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thanks, for your remarks, Dr. Gottfried, to which I add: When I here some “conservatives” state that they’d prefer the cigar smoking Clinton to the bloodthursty Bush, I reply: Have they forgotten Waco? And don’t tell me that those folk weren’t killed because they were Christians. They claim that they were abusing children is specious; the claim that the Fed US response was “excessive” is understated. Come 20. i. anno Domini 2009, we can expect from the Dimmykrats a full court press against Christians, coached on by Cultural Marxists.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The only “religion” the U.S. Govt. has any business involving itself in, centers around a goddess (note the small g) named Liberty! She deserves their full support.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Should my pastor make statements to the effect: Bill Clinton is a womanizing dog and should be removed from office....or that George Bush is a child murderer, guilty of mass genocide (Irq), and should be tried by an international court.....
The IRS would descend and take the church, and possibly members who might resist (WACO), having violated the IRS charitable/church tax rules.....having crossed that free speech boundary imposed on the church regarding religion and politics....
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.