The Anti-Cult Movement

By the end of the [1970s], a powerful grassroots ‘anti-cult’ movement had been formed to lobby public officials and to expose the activities of fringe religious groups described as ‘totalistic’ and ‘authoritarian’ by their opponents.

The emergence of unconventional new religious groups during the late 1960s and into the early 1970s was "accompanied by widespread media coverage of these ‘cults,’ their supporters, and their critics.”¹ The terminology “cult” was used to “categorize certain religions as illegitimate or dangerous.”² As a result of these concerns over legitimacy and safety, “by the end of the [1970s], a powerful grassroots ‘anti-cult’ movement had been formed to lobby public officials and to expose the activities of fringe religious groups described as ‘totalistic’ and ‘authoritarian’ by their opponents.”³ The use of “cult” language came to the forefront in discussions about religious groups after the November 1978 mass suicide in northwestern Guyana by a religious group called Peoples Temple, which had been previously labeled a cult. Opponents of NRM labels had several questions regarding these religious groups: “Should American citizens be protected from new religions? Should child members of new religions be forcibly removed? What is the role of the state in protecting personal autonomy? What is the role of the state in protecting the children of unconventional believers? How do we balance the potentially harmful effects of religious adherence with our national commitment to religious freedom?”⁴  While the anti-cult movement has since died down, cult language still exists in the discussion of the American religious landscape.

How do we balance the potentially harmful effects of religious adherence with our national commitment to religious freedom?